Allowed

M/s. Wire and Cabnle (India) Pvt. LTd., v. M/s. Controls and Schematics Ltd.

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011CRP/1045/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227. The Court quashed an interim order dismissing an application for rejection of a plaint, directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the Pondicherry Court, as agreed restrictions on jurisdiction prevailed over the local court's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed. Order dismissing application for rejection of plaint set aside. Plaint directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

M/s. Wire and Cabnle (India) Pvt. LTd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No. 1045 of 2009

¶3

Date: 24-02-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Wire & Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

¶6

………. Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

M/s. Controls & Schematics Limited and another

¶9

……… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶11

C.R.P.No. 1045 of 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The petitioner herein, who is the first defendant, by way of this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeks to assail the correctness of the order, dated

¶15

19-01-2009 dismissing the application in I.A.No.1148 of 2008 in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint in the main suit.

¶16

Briefly the facts of the case are that the first

¶17

respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit basing upon the bank guarantees, which are nothing but an offshoot of the transaction inter se arising in pursuance of an agreement entered into between the parties on 08-052000 which contemplates a specific arbitration clause for settlement of the dispute and further restricts any such disputes to be taken up only in the judicial Court in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Hence, the case of the petitioner is that the Court at Hyderabad will not have any

¶18

jurisdiction nor the civil suit is maintainable in view of the arbitration clause. The Court below did not find favour with either of these objections and dismissed the Application. Hence, the Revision Petition.

¶19

Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that admittedly the suit amount from out of the bank guarantees is clearly a direct offshoot from the transaction between the parties in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, dated 08-05-2000 and therefore, it cannot be said that it is totally independent and it has lost its effect. The arbitration clause is specific for seeking a reference to them in the first instance for settlement. Further all such disputes necessarily to be initiated in the judicial Court within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. It is now well established that where two Courts have jurisdiction, the parties can restrict it to one. Therefore, even though the Court at Hyderabad has jurisdiction, but since the petitioner’s office is mainly placed at Pondicherry, with which the agreement was entered into, the Court at Pondicherry only has jurisdiction. In view of the same, the suit does not lie in any Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh or at Hyderabad. Therefore, the plaint has to be returned instead of rejection.

¶20

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order, dated 19-01-2009 in I.A.No.1148 of 2008 is set aside. The plaint in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. It shall be open for the plaintiff to present the plaint within a period of four weeks from the date of return of the plaint and seek appropriate orders from the appropriate Court. It is needless to mention that the interim order subsisting as on this day shall remain in force for a period of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.

¶21

_______________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J

¶22

Date: 24-02-2011

¶23

YCR

M/s. Wire and Cabnle (India) Pvt. LTd., v. M/s. Controls and Schematics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Wire and Cabnle (India) Pvt. LTd., v. M/s. Controls and Schematics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prakash Bansal Vs Ankit Agarwal

Smt. K. Sri Rekha Vs K.Vijay Krishna,S/o.Dr.Brahmaji Rao,Private Service in Usa

Jasraj Purohit ( died ) per LRs Vs Jitender Jain

M/s/ Wire and Cable ( India ) Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Controls and Schematics Limited

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs Dy. Commissioner of Labour

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs Dy. Commissioner of Labour