2015 (3) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case lie in a narrow compass. 4. The Appellant Company is running a small scale industry at Raichur in the State of Karnataka and is engaged in the business of cotton ginning, pressing while extraction and in marketing the finished products. Whereas Respondent No.2 is running a cotton spinning mill at Latur in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.2 purchased 750 bales of cotton from the appellant-company and made part payment to the appellant. The balance amount was not paid which led to a dispute between the parties. 5. It further appears that the appellant filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act,1993 (for short 'IDP Act') be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trict Judge, Latur, appellant preferred a revision before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision holding that since the Chief Justice of the High Court dealing with an application under Section 11 of the Act is not a court, and that no application was filed in any court prior to the filing of application under Section 34 of the Act and further the bales were supplied at Latur, it is the Latur Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act. 8. We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shrish K. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by respondent no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made before a court which had no jurisdiction. In Jatinder Nath v. Chopra Land Developers (P) Ltd.,(2007) 11 SCC 453 at p. 460, para 9 and Rajasthan SEB v. Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 107 at p. 116, paras 33 to 36 and Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 32 at pp. 47-48, para 32, it was held that where the agreement between the parties restricted jurisdiction to only one particular court, that court alone would have jurisdiction as neither Section 31(4) nor Section 42 contains a non obstante clause wiping out a contrary agreement between the parties. It has thus been held that applications preferred to courts outside the exclusive court agreed to by parties would also be without jurisdiction." 10.....