In the recent legal development, a transfer petition was filed by the M/S ACME PAPERS LTD. seeking to move the property dispute case from Calcutta to Sehore. The case involves the petitioner, who failed to obtain necessary approvals for a land purchase agreement, leading the respondent to file a suit for specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The decision of transferring the case has significant implications for the parties involved in the ongoing dispute.
Facts
- The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 10.11.2022 for the purchase of land.
- The land in question was approximately 06 acres and was to be sold on an ‘as is whatever there is’ basis for Rs.20,69,92,000/-.
- Petitioner seeks transfer of RCS No.128/A/2023 from the Court of District Judge, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh to City Civil Court, Calcutta, West Bengal.
- Agreement stated petitioner would obtain necessary approvals/NOCs for the property transfer; in case of delay, they could consider the MoU as cancelled.
- Petitioner failed to obtain required approvals, prompting respondents to file a suit for specific performance of the MoU.
- Petitioner now seeks transfer to Calcutta where they have filed a suit declaring the MoU terminated and incapable of being acted upon.
Arguments
- The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed in Calcutta by the petitioner.
- The suit filed by the petitioner addresses the validity and enforceability of the MoU.
- Existence of MoU and its specific performance are intrinsically connected to the suit property in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.
- The petitioner has filed other suits in Sehore and is appearing in a matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh related to the suit property.
- The reliefs sought by the petitioner need to be decided first and cannot be raised as an issue before the District Judge, Sehore since they have already been raised in a suit.
- The respondent’s suit for specific performance would only arise if the agreement is found to be valid.
Analysis
- Section 16 of CPC requires suits concerning immovable property to be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is situated.
- The suit property in this case is located in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.
- The petitioner’s argument of cause of action in Calcutta due to MoU execution there is incorrect.
- Section 20 of CPC allows suits to be filed where the defendant resides or cause of action arises, but it is a residuary provision applied only when Sections 15 to 19 do not cover the situation.
- Section 10, CPC mandates that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue between the parties in another pending suit under the same title in any court in India.
- The purpose of this section is to prevent multiple proceedings on the same issues already in litigation.
- In the case of Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Ltd., it was held that consideration of a Transfer Petition under Section 25, CPC should take into account Section 10, CPC.
- Based on the principles of Section 10 CPC, the suit filed first in time takes precedence, and the subsequent suit may be liable to be stayed.
- Section 20 of the CPC is a residuary provision covering cases not falling under Sections 15 to 19, and its purpose is explained through the language ‘subject to the limitations aforesaid’.
- In this specific case, the suit filed in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh was earlier than the suit filed in Calcutta.
- The filing date of the suit in Sehore was on 12.05.2023, while the petitioner filed its vakalatnama therein on 28.06.2023.
- The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 25 CPC must consider ‘expediency for ends of justice’ as the relevant factor.
- The court will consider and respect the rule in Section 10 of the Code.
- Factors such as the location of evidence, convenience of parties and witnesses, accessibility, etc., will also be weighed.
- In certain cases, the court may decide to transfer the case based on these factors, deviating from the rule in Section 10 of the Code.
- Decisions for transfer will be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
- The suit property being in Sehore suggests that property records, government documents, and most witnesses would be in close proximity.
- The suit property is mortgaged to Bank of Baroda’s Bhopal branch.
Decision
- Transfer Petition No. 2664 of 2023 is dismissed.
- Transfer Petition No. 499 of 2024 is allowed, transferring TS No. 1346 of 2023 to the Court of Principle Judge, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.
- Upon transfer, fresh notice to all parties is to be given by the transferee Court.
- The case shall proceed at the transferee Court from the stage it was left at City Civil Court, Calcutta, West Bengal.
- Records of the case are to be transferred to the transferee Court immediately.
- Pending applications, if any, are disposed of in accordance with the law.
Case Title: M/S. ACME PAPERS LTD. Vs. M/S. CHINTAMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (2024 INSC 248)
Case Number: T.P.(C) No.-002664 / 2023
