EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED versus ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 01-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 4 S.C.R. 948 
A 
EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED 
8 
v. 
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) 
LIMITED & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3272 of 2015) 
APRIL 01, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
c 
Letters Patent: Letters Patent of High Court of Calcutta 
- Clause 12 -
First respondent filed an application for 
revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of Letters 
Patent by the Calcutta High Court and asking return of the 
plaint to be filed before the court having jurisdiction to try 
D the same on the ground that suit was suit for land and the 
immovable property was situated in Mumbai; that the 
Agreement provided that the Mumbai Court has exclusive 
jurisdiction - Held: The suit for land is a suit in which the 
relief claimed relates to the title or delivery of possession 
E of land or immovable property - The prayer in the plaint 
was for a decree for specific performance of the agreement 
for sale by directing issue of Sale Certificate in favour of 
the plaintiff - The sale certificate sought under the prayer 
requires the delivery of possession of the suit property -
F Thus, the suit was indeed a suit for land - The intention 
of the parties to the Agreement was to restrict limitation to 
the forums/courts of Mumbai only -
Therefore, the Courts 
of Mumbai were granted exclusive jurisdiction as per the 
G Agreement and there was no reason to create any 
exception to the intention of the parties. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Suit for land A plain reading of Clause 
948 
EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. v. ASSET RE-CONST 949 
CO. (INDIA) LTD. 
12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Calcutta A 
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; -
B 
where such land or property is situated in part only 
within the said territorial jurisdiction of the Court, if the 
leave of the Court shall have been first obtained. (b) in 
suits other than suit for land - if the cause of action 
has arisen wholly within the said limits - where the C 
cause of action has arisen in part only within the said 
limits, if the leave of the Court shall been first obtained; 
If the defendant at the time of the commencement of 
the suit dwells or carries on business or personally D 
works for gain within such limits. In the present case, 
a suit was filed for the specific performance of the 
Agreement which contemplated the sale of property. 
The question with respect to Clause 12 of Letters 
Patent was whether the present suit was suit for land. E 
The suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed 
relates to the title or delivery of possession of land or 
immovable property. Further to determine whether it 
is a suit for land, the Court has to look into barely the 
Plaint and no other evidence. In the present case, the F 
prayer in the plaint was for a decree for specific 
performance of the agreement for sale by directing the 
Defendants to issue in favour of the plaintiff the Sale 
Certificate in respect of assets mentioned therein. The 
sale certificate sought under the prayer requires the G . 
delivery of possession of the suit property. Thus, 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 H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A itself contemplates the delivery of the immovable 
property. Therefore, the present suit was indeed a suit 
for land. [paras 9, 10, 11, 14] [956-E; 957-C-H; 958-A-F; 
960-C-D] 
B 
2. Exclusive jurisdiction. It is clear from Clauses 
5 and 9(e)(viii) of the Agreement entered into between 
the parties that the intention of the parties to the 
Agreement was to restrict limitation to the forums/ 
courts of Mumbai only. Therefore, the Courts of 
C Mumbai were granted exclusive jurisdiction as per the 
Agreement and there was no reason to create any 
exception to the intention of the parties. In view of the 
two findings that the present suit is a suit for land, and 
that the parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to 
D the Court of Mumbai, the jurisdiction of the Court at 
Calcutta is clearly ousted as per law. Thus, the plaint 
will have to be returned by the Ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.