TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivery of possession of the suit property. Thus, we find that the prayer for delivery of possession was an implicit one in the present case. The prayer as sought in the plaint could not have been granted without the delivery of possession of the suit property as the sale certificate itself contemplates the delivery of the immovable property. Thus, in view of this we find that the Adcon Electronics [2001 (9) TMI 1123 - SUPREME COURT] would not apply as there was a prayer for delivery of possession in the present case. Therefore, we hold that the present suit was indeed a suit for land. Matter of Jurisdiction - This Court in Swastik Gases P. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURT], has held that “The very existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to read such a clause in the agreement like a statute. In the present case, only the Courts in Kolkata had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties.” Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Courts of Mumbai were granted exclusive jurisdiction as per the Agreement and we find no reason to create any exception to the intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AESI Act and took possession of the assets. Allegedly the ARCIL entered into a Private Treaty Agreement dated 13.02.2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement ) with the appellant Excel Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as 'Excel'), for sale of the said properties for a consideration of ₹ 7.50 Crores. This was to be a sale under SARFAESI Act wherein the sale was to be conducted by execution of sale certificate by the ARCIL in favour of Excel. The Excel alleges that it had even issued a cheque of ₹ 9.5 Crores dated March 1, 2007 to the ARCIL. In reply thereto, Mr. Sanjoy Gupta, Vice President of the ARCIL (Respondent No. 2 herein) had vide letter dated 20-03-2007 informed Excel to collect its cheque since the deal could not be materialised as the management of ARCIL did not approve such a proposal. Thus, the sale could not get through and the present appellant brought out a suit for specific performance of the Agreement against ARCIL, being C.S. No.299 of 2007, in the High Court of Calcutta in December 2007. Initially, there were three Defendants in the said suit, namely, ARCIL, Mr. Sanjoy Gupta (Vice President of ARCIL) and Uniworth. However, lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the schedule i.e. mortgage of immovable properties and hypothecation of movable properties ; the nature of this security was not mentioned in the agreement and thus, any security could be created on the said mortgage or hypothecation. Therefore, the learned High Court came to the conclusion that the enforcement of terms of agreement would not lead to the decree in suit for land. (ii) With respect to Forum Selection Clause, the High Court held that the ARCIL had waived its right to object to the lack of jurisdiction by participating in application for impleadment of Respondent No.4, wherein orders were passed on 06.01.2011. The learned High Court noted that ARCIL had made no objection to the jurisdiction while the impleadment application was argued. (iii) On the question of the jurisdiction of Civil Court being ousted by the SARFAESI Act, the High Court found that the breach of present agreement would not fall under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act wherein the Debt Recovery Tribunal is given the jurisdiction to rule only that whether the sale was a correct measure adopted and conducted properly. In the present case, even if it is assumed that ARCIL was the assignee of ICICI a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngal in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction shall be empowered to receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen either wholly, or in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business, or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Calcutta, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed one hundred rupees. A plain reading of the provision suggests that ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta will extend in following cases: (a) In a suit for land or other immovable property- where such land or property is wholly situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lary to granting of the prayer. Further, another point which has been emphasized on behalf of respondent is that the prayer requires sale to be effected in terms of the Agreement, and therefore, the entire agreement may be read as a part of the prayer. 13. On the question of suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell being a suit for land, this Court has laid down a clear principle in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat Ram and Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 698, that a suit for specific performance simplicitor without a prayer for delivery of possession is not a suit for land as Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 categorically bars any Court to grant such relief of possession in a suit for specific performance unless specifically sought. In view of this judgment, in the present case, the only question for our determination in the plaint is whether a prayer for delivery of possession is sought or not ? The prayer sought is issuance of sale certificate which is provided in Appendix V to the Rules under SARFAESI Act. The sale certificate reads as follows: Whereas the undersigned being the authorised officer of the ......................... (name of the institution) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to read such a clause in the agreement like a statute. In the present case, only the Courts in Kolkata had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Courts of Mumbai were granted exclusive jurisdiction as per the Agreement and we find no reason to create any exception to the intention of the parties. 16. In view of the above-mentioned two findings that the present suit is a suit for land, and that the parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Mumbai, the jurisdiction of the Court at Calcutta is clearly ousted as per law. Thus, from the above conclusion it appears that the plaint will have to be returned by the Calcutta High Court as it does not have the jurisdiction. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal need not be answered. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. The parties may proceed to take any appropriate measure in an appropriate forum as provided in law to enforce their rights. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
