ISHA DISTRIBUTION HOUSE PVT. LTD. versus ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 07-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
ISHA DISTRIBUTION HOUSE PVT. LTD.
v.
ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ANR.
(Civil  Appeal Nos. 2554-2555 of 2019)
MARCH 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHEHSWARI, JJ.]
Letters Patent Act, 1865:
Clause 12 – Suit for declaration, damages and grant of
injunction filed by appellant in the Calcutta High Court on its
original side along with an application seeking leave to file the
civil suit as required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act,
1865 – Single Judge of the High Court granted leave to appellant
as prayed for – Respondent, on entering appearance, filed an
application praying for revocation of leave granted to the appellant
on the ground that no part of cause of action arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – Single Judge
revoked the leave – Division Bench affirmed the order of Single
Judge – On appeal, held:  Since in the instant case, the respondents
did not file any written statement and instead raised the plea of
territorial jurisdiction by filing application for revocation of leave,
High Court should have granted liberty to the respondents
(defendants) to file the written statement in the suit and to raise
therein a plea of territorial jurisdiction of the Court, instead of
entertaining the said application – An issue of such nature, cannot
be tried by filing an application for revocation of leave – Application
filed by the respondents for revocation of grant of leave is dismissed
and the respondent is  granted liberty to file their written statement
in answer to the plaint and raise therein the plea in question along
with all other pleas relating to the facts and law as the case may be
– Impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to Single Judge
of High Court to decide the issue afresh – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – Or.XIV.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Single
Judge of the High Court, the Court
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 957
957
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
HELD: 1. A plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a
mixed question of law and fact. It is for this reason, the
respondents(defendants) should be allowed to raise such plea in
the written statement to enable the Court to try it on its merits in
accordance with law in the light of the requirements of
Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other
relevant provisions governing the issue on merits. [Para 20]
[961-H; 962-A]
2. The application filed by the respondents (defendants)
for revocation of grant of leave is dismissed and the respondent
is  granted liberty to file their written statement in answer to the
plaint and raise therein the plea in question along with all other
pleas relating to the facts and law as the case may be.  On such
written statement being filed, the Single Judge will frame
appropriate issues arising in the suit and proceed to answer them
in accordance with law keeping in view the procedure laid down
in Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Paras 22, 23]
[962-C, D]
Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co. & Ors. v. Deutsche
Bank (2004) 12 SCC 376 - relied on
Secretary of State v. Golabrai Paliram AIR 1932
Calcutta 146 – approved
Case Law Reference
AIR 1932 Calcutta 146
approved
Para 14
(2004) 12 SCC 376
relied on
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2554-
2555 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2017 and 02.05.2017
of the High Court at Calcutta in APOT No. 274  of  2016 and RVWO
No. 16 of 2017 in APOT No. 274  of  2016 respectively.
K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mainak Bose, Amitabh Ray,
S. Sukumaran, Bhupesh Kumar, Ms. Meera Mathur, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev Kumar, Varun Sharma, Abhishek
E. Kisku, Abhishek Goyal, Anshul Sehgal, Gaurav, Faisal Sherwani,
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Sanjeev Singh, Ms. Anandita, Advs. for the
Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order
dated 13.02.2017 in APOT No.274 of 2016 and dated 02.05.2017 in
RVWO No.16 of 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta whereby
the High Court dismissed the appeal and review petition filed by the
appellant herein.
3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the
facts stated infra.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the
defendants in a civil suit out of which these appeals arise.
5. The appellant filed a

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