B.E. SIMOES VON STARABURG NIEDENTHAL Vs. CHHATTISGARH INVESTMENT LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 16,2014
B.E. Simoes Von Staraburg Niedenthal
Appellant
VERSUS
Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHATIA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. D C PATEL [REFERRED TO]MICHAEL GOLODETZ VS. SERAJUDDIN AND CO [REFERRED TO]
HAKAM SINGH VS. GAMMON INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRIVENI ENGINEERING WORKS [REFERRED TO]
ANGILE INSULATIONS VS. DAVY ASHMORE INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
FCI VS. A M AHMED AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
NEYCER INDIA LIMITED VS. GMB CERAMICS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NEW MOGA TRANSPORT COMPANY VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SUBHALAXMI FABRICS PVT LTD VS. CHAND MAL BARADIA [REFERRED TO]
JATINDER NATH VS. CHOPRA LAND DEVLOPERS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY VS. UNIVERSAL PETROL CHEMICALS [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI COKE INDUSTRY PVT LTD VS. MS MAA BHAGWATI COKE GUJ PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
A V M SALES CORPORATION VS. ANURADHA CHEMICALS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK GASES P. LTD VS. INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AARKA SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. KALSI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-15] [REFERRED TO]INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. REACH DREDGING LTD. (RDL) AND GAYATRI PROJECTS (P) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA TABLE TENNIS ASSOCIATION VS. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-311] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVALIK FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-411] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. M. KISHORE [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-186] [REFERRED TO]
BOWLOPEDIA RESTAURANTS INDIA LIMITED VS. DEVYANI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2021-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
GAIL (INDIA) LTD VS. M/S. FILATEX INDIA LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED SEEPAT ROAD VS. BALAJI METALS & MINERALS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION AND HOSPITALITY PVT LTD VS. SUMITHRA INN [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
VITTAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES VS. TROPICAL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-1478] [REFERRED TO]
ANIKET VS. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-234] [REFERRED TO]
TECHMA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. YASHPREET SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-148] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SSANGYONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPNAY LTD. VS. M/S. GEOSYS INDIA INFRASTRUTURE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY AGGARWAL VS. BLCCO LAWRIE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMANI RIVER PELLETS LIMITED VS. KAMACHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2019-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI STRUCTURE LTD VS. DAKSHINANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-217] [REFERRED]
ABB INDIA LIMITED VS. ISOLUX CORSAN INDIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-148] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. CHOUDHARY RAJNI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-816] [REFERRED]
DEBDAS ROUTH VS. HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-228] [REFERRED TO]
ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY VS. M/S M P TAR PRODUCTS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL& ANOTHER VS. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.& ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. R EASWARAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
VITTAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES VS. TROPICAL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-500] [REFERRED TO]
M/S EMKAY GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. GIRDHAR SONDHI [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
JAIN AUTOMOBILES H.P.C. DEALER VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
BHARGAVI INFRATECH PVT LTD VS. NEW CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
SIKKA MOTORS PVT LTD VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD (HMIL) [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-213] [REFERRED TO]
M. S. TALWAR AUTO GARAGES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. M S VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
V.E. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD. VS. GRAND MOTOR SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VS. HOMERUN SPORTS PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
NJ CONSTRUTION VS. AYURSUNDRA HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
RITES LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI STRUCTURE LTD. VS. DAKSHINANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT JHM HOTELS LTD. VS. RAJASTHALI RESORTS AND STUDIOS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-210] [REFERRED TO]
CARS24 SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. CYBER APPROACH WORKSPACE LLP [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA INFOLINE LIMITED VS. RAMI REDDY GAYAM [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-228] [REFERRED TO]
BIG CHARTER PRIVATE LIMITED VS. EZEN AVIATION PTY. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
MECH COMPONENTS PRIVATE LTD. VS. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ORDINANCE FACTORIES, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
SUPINDER KOUR VS. MDN EDIFY EDUCATION PVT. LTD. [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
DATAWIND INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIL SHRIVASTAVA VS. MAGMA FINCORP LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
UNIQUE OPTICAL FIBER AND TELECOM SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TELECOMMUNICATIONAS CONSULTANCY INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-157] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS MOBILE DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DATAWIND INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
BGS SGS SOMA JV VS. NHPC LTD [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
M/S RIDHI SIDHI VS. M/S LEVIS STRAUSS (INDIA) PVT LTD & ANR [LAWS(ORI)-2019-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. FEPL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-230] [REFERRED TO]
R.P. INFOSYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2023-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
ANIKET SA INVESTMENTS LLC VS. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-187] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7589 of 2011
Leave granted. Admittedly, a Raising Agreement with regard to mines located in Goa was entered between the parties at Raipur on 09.04.2007. The first Appellant operates mines in Goa. Under the Raising Agreement, the Respondent is exclusive purchaser of the ore from the mines of the Appellants. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "CIL") made an application Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, '1996 Act') for interim protection before the Court of District Judge, Raipur. The present Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "SIMOES"), who were Respondents in the application, raised the objection, by way of an application, about the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur. It was submitted by the SIMOES that the District Judge, Raipur has no jurisdiction for three reasons: (i) the subject mines are located in Goa, (ii) the agreement was also made in Goa, and (iii) the place of residence of Respondent No. 2 is Goa. CIL, on the other hand, responded to the SIMOES objection by stating that although the subject mines are situated in Goa, the working of the company is in Raipur, the cause of action also arose in Raipur and, therefore, the District Judge, Raipur also has jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter.
(2.)The District Judge, Raipur elaborately noted the arguments of the parties, but curiously first observed that it would be possible to decide the issue of jurisdiction only when SIMOES filed reply to the petition Under Section 9 of the 1996 Act and then dismissed the application whereby SIMOES raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction.
(3.)Aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, SIMOES preferred appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court did not interfere with the order of the District Judge, Raipur and observed that the question of jurisdiction could only be decided by the District Judge after the reply was filed to the application Under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The High Court observed that the District Judge shall decide the application Under Section 9 and so also the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction afresh within thirty days from the date of the filing of reply and after hearing the parties.
Leave granted. Admittedly, a Raising Agreement with regard to mines located in Goa was entered between the parties at Raipur on 09.04.2007. The first Appellant operates mines in Goa. Under the Raising Agreement, the Respondent is exclusive purchaser of the ore from the mines of the Appellants. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "CIL") made an application Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, '1996 Act') for interim protection before the Court of District Judge, Raipur. The present Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "SIMOES"), who were Respondents in the application, raised the objection, by way of an application, about the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Raipur. It was submitted by the SIMOES that the District Judge, Raipur has no jurisdiction for three reasons: (i) the subject mines are located in Goa, (ii) the agreement was also made in Goa, and (iii) the place of residence of Respondent No. 2 is Goa. CIL, on the other hand, responded to the SIMOES objection by stating that although the subject mines are situated in Goa, the working of the company is in Raipur, the cause of action also arose in Raipur and, therefore, the District Judge, Raipur also has jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter.
(2.)The District Judge, Raipur elaborately noted the arguments of the parties, but curiously first observed that it would be possible to decide the issue of jurisdiction only when SIMOES filed reply to the petition Under Section 9 of the 1996 Act and then dismissed the application whereby SIMOES raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction.
(3.)Aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, SIMOES preferred appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court did not interfere with the order of the District Judge, Raipur and observed that the question of jurisdiction could only be decided by the District Judge after the reply was filed to the application Under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The High Court observed that the District Judge shall decide the application Under Section 9 and so also the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction afresh within thirty days from the date of the filing of reply and after hearing the parties.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.