Supreme Court dismisses appeal, Mumbai court has exclusive jurisdiction. Calcutta High Court lacks jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the suit for specific performance was considered a suit for land. The Court found that the parties had conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of Mumbai, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Consequently, the Calcutta High Court did not have jurisdiction, and the plaint would need to be returned. The parties were advised to pursue their rights in a suitable forum as per the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit for specific performance filed by Excel was a "suit for land"Rs.
2. Whether the Private Treaty Agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Mumbai, and if so, whether ARCIL waived this clause by participating in the impleadment application without protestRs.
3. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in the present case by virtue of Section 17 of the SARFAESI ActRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Suit for Land
The Supreme Court examined Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Calcutta, which pertains to the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court noted that a suit for land is one in which the relief claimed relates to the title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. The Court referenced the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat and Anr., which established that a suit for specific performance without a prayer for delivery of possession is not a suit for land.

However, in this case, the prayer in the plaint sought a decree for specific performance of the Agreement by directing the defendants to issue a Sale Certificate in respect of the assets mentioned. The Court found that the issuance of a Sale Certificate under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002, inherently involves the delivery of possession of the property. Therefore, the prayer for delivery of possession was implicit in the plaint. Consequently, the Court held that the present suit was indeed a suit for land.

Issue 2: Exclusive Jurisdiction
The Agreement between the parties included clauses that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of Mumbai. Clause 5 stated, "The payment/cheque shall be drawn and made payable in Mumbai. The jurisdiction shall be Courts of Mumbai." Clause 9(e)(viii) further specified, "Disputes, if any, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Court/Tribunals only."

The Supreme Court cited the case of Swastik Gases P. Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which held that the existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties clear and should not be read like a statute. The Court concluded that the parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts of Mumbai and found no reason to deviate from this intention. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court at Calcutta was ousted by the Agreement.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Civil Court
Given the conclusions on the first two issues, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to address the question of whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred by Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court noted that the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was clearly ousted, and the plaint would have to be returned as the Calcutta High Court did not have jurisdiction.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit for specific performance was indeed a suit for land and that the parties had conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of Mumbai. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was ousted, and the plaint would have to be returned. The parties were advised to proceed in an appropriate forum as provided by law to enforce their rights.

---