SC reiterates: Territorial Jurisdiction can only be challenged in a pending suit under Sec. 25 CPC

 The Supreme Court has reiterated that the scope of Section 25 of the CPC to challenge the territorial jurisdiction is limited and it can only be exercised where the suit is pending

 

The single-judge bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari was adjudicating upon a Transfer Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while making the above observation.

Brief Facts of the Case:

 

The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the transfer an application filedby the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the
Commercial Court, Bengaluru to the Bombay High Court or any other court of equivalent jurisdiction in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The reason for the transfer is that the petitioner had already filed an
arbitration petition under Section 47 and 48 of the Act for the enforcement of arbitral award passed by the International Court of Arbitration.

Legal Question:

 Whether the plea of territorial jurisdiction or the lack thereof can be entertained by this court in its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the CPC?

Supreme Court's Observations:

Placing reliance on the case of Naivedya Associated v. Kirti Nutrients Limited, the court held that it is no longer res integra (something which has not been settled before) that there is limited scope vested in this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the CPC and the same cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings before it as the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending. In the present case, the suit was not pending in the Bengaluru Commercial Court. The suit
was already instituted and the parties had the option to question the jurisdiction in that court itself.

 

The Court held that the transfer petition filed by the Petitioner is bereft of any merit and hence dismissed.

CASE TITLE: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs Powerica Limited & Ors.

CASE DETAILS: TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.32/2020

 CORAM: Justice J.K. Maheshwari

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure