1961 (11) TMI 59 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court emphasizes jurisdictional choice in civil suits, limits inherent powers.

MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA Versus BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order restraining the appellant from proceeding with the suit at Asansol. It held that the Asansol ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Asansol Court.2. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Legal effect of the second proviso in the deed of dissolution on the maintainability of the suit in the Court at Asansol.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Asansol Court:The primary issue was whether the Asansol Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the appellant. The respondent argued that according to the deed of dissolution, all disputes should be decided in the court at Indore. The appellant contended that the Asansol Court was competent to try the suit. The High Court of Calcutta directed the Subordinate Judge at Asansol to hear the issue of jurisdiction expeditiously. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on this question of jurisdiction as it was the subject matter of an issue in both the Asansol and Indore suits and had not yet been decided in either.2. Inherent Powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The appellant argued that the Court could not exercise its inherent powers when there were specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure for issuing interim injunctions, namely Section 94 and Order XXXIX. The respondent contended that the Court could issue an interim injunction in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151. The Supreme Court held that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances not covered by Order XXXIX if the interests of justice require it. The inherent powers are not controlled by the provisions of the Code, and Section 151 makes it clear that these powers are complementary to the powers specifically conferred by the Code. However, the Court emphasized that the inherent powers should be exercised in very exceptional circumstances and not in conflict with the provisions of the Code or the intentions of the Legislature.3. Legal Effect of the Second Proviso in the Deed of Dissolution on the Maintainability of the Suit in the Court at Asansol:The second proviso in the deed of dissolution stated that all disputes should be decided in the court at Indore. The appellant filed the suit at Asansol, and the respondent sought an injunction to restrain the appellant from proceeding with the suit at Asansol. The Supreme Court held that the question of jurisdiction of the Asansol Court over the subject matter of the suit should be decided by the Asansol Court. The Indore Court could not decide that question. The Court further held that it was not for the Indore Court to ensure that the appellant observed the terms of the contract regarding the forum for dispute resolution. The appellant's choice of the Asansol Court could not be said to be in anticipation of the Indore suit or to put the respondent to trouble and harassment. The Court found that the respondent's application for injunction in September 1953, despite the High Court of Calcutta's order for an early decision on the issue of jurisdiction, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order restraining the appellant from proceeding with the suit at Asansol, and held that the inherent powers of the Court should be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that the question of jurisdiction should be decided by the Asansol Court, and the Indore Court could not restrain the appellant from proceeding with his suit at Asansol. The Court also noted that the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure were clear and mandatory, and the subsequent suit at Indore could be stayed in view of Section 10.