LexARCADIA SHIPPING LTD. versus TATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 5 S.C.R. 404 : 2024 INSC 333 Arcadia Shipping Ltd. v. Tata Steel Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 5599 of 2024) 16 April 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna* and Dipankar Datta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was correct in setting aside the finding of the Single Judge that the Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Headnotes Territorial Jurisdiction – Suit by Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. (now Tata Steel Limited) – Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Scope of, Explained. Held: Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises – Situs of the cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on that court – Two transactions took place – One of sale of goods of galvanised steel in Delhi and one of shipment of goods by Arcadia from Mumbai to Djibouti, Ethiopia – Although Arcadia’s involvement was restricted to the second transaction only, the transactions were intrinsically intertwined – The supply order was placed in Delhi and the payment was to be released in Delhi – However, the sale of goods and then their shipment (from Mumbai to Djibouti) was connected and synchronised – Therefore, the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC as the cause of action arose in part in Delhi. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 1, Rules 3 and 7 – Scope of, Explained. Held: Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC provides that the plaintiff may join as a defendant in one suit, all persons against whom, the plaintiff claims the right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of transactions – The claim [2024] 5 S.C.R. 405 Arcadia Shipping Ltd. v. Tata Steel Limited and Others viz. the defendants can be joint, several or in the alternative – It is permissible to file one civil suit, even when, separate suits can be brought against such persons, when common questions of law and fact arise – Order 1 Rule 7 of the CPC permits a plaintiff to join two or more defendants in order that the question as to which of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, can be decided in one suit – As per Order 1, Rules 3 and 7 of the CPC, it was permissible for Bhushan Steel to enjoin in a single suit all the defendants, including Arcadia – The cause of action could not have been adjudicated without impleading all the defendants as parties – Thus, in terms of Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC, the relief claimed by Bhushan Steel lies against all the defendants, albeit to different extents and arising out of a series of transactions – Thus, Bhushan Steel was within its rights to enjoin all the defendants under a single suit as per Order 1 Rule 7 of the CPC. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] Bill of Lading – Purpose of, Explained. Held: A Bill of Lading serves the following purposes: (a) it is receipt of the goods shipped and the terms on which they have been received; (b) it is evidence for the contract of carriage of goods; and (c) it is a document of title for the goods specified therein. [Para 8] Territorial Jurisdiction – Question of – Stage at which to be decided – At the outset. Held: The issue of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the outset rather than being deferred till the matter is resolved. [Para 15] List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. List of Keywords Territorial Jurisdiction, Bill of Lading, Dominus Litis, Letters of Credit, Sale of Goods. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5599 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) (COMM) 19 of 2019 406 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties E.R. Kumar, D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Sonal Gupta, Ms. Manisha Arya, Abhishek Thakral, M/S. Parekh & Co., Advs. for the Petitioner. Joy Basu, Shashank Gautam, Arvind Thapliyal, Surya Kapoor, Ms. Saravna Vasanta, Siddhant Pandey, Rajesh Banati, Ashish Sareen, Anoop George, Kunal Chaterjee, Ms. Aagam Kaur, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Sanjiv Khanna, J. Leave granted. 2. This order gives reasons and decides a question of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081. 3. We begin by briefly referring to the facts o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.