Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1446 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - application not entertained on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - doctrine of ratio decidendi (reason/rational for the decision) - HELD THAT:- The two-Judge Bench has opined that a precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi and any reasons assigned in support of such interim order containing prima facie findings are only tentative. There cannot be any quarrel over the aforesaid proposition of law. However, the controversy involved in this case has its distinctive characteristics. The Commercial Court in London, interpreting the same agreement adverted to earlier judgments (may be in anti-suit injunction) and held that in such a situation the Courts in London will have jurisdiction. The analysis made therein, as has been stated earlier, has been appreciated in BALCO and Enercon (India) Ltd. [[2014 (2) TMI 1170 - SUPREME COURT]] and this Court has approved the principle set forth in the said case. Once this Court has accepted the principle, the principle governs as it holds the field and it becomes a binding precedent. It will be an anathema to law to conceive a situation where this Court is obligated to accept that the decisions in BALCO and Enercon (India) Ltd. [[2014 (2) TMI 1170 - SUPREME COURT]] which approve Shashoua principle are binding precedents, yet with some innate sense of creativity will dwell upon and pronounce, as canvassed by the learned senior Counsel for the Respondent, that inter-party dispute arose in the context of an anti-suit injunction and, therefore, the same having not attained finality, would not bind the parties. This will give rise to a total incompatible situation and certainly lead to violation of judicial discipline - such submission is rejected. There cannot be any trace of doubt that any filing of an application by the Appellant in the courts in India can clothe such courts with jurisdiction unless the law vests the same in them. The agreement in question having been interpreted in a particular manner by the English courts and the said interpretation having gained acceptation by this Court, the inescapable conclusion is that the courts in India have no jurisdiction - Appeal allowed.
|