EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED versus ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED versus ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

The suit was indeed a suit for land since the prayer for issue of sale certificate under SARFAESI Rules necessarily included delivery of possession of immovable property, thereby invoking Clause 12 of Letters Patent; exclusive jurisdiction was contractually granted to Mumbai courts, ousting Calcutta jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: Excel Dealcomm Private Limited; Respondent No.1: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited; Respondent No.2: Sanjoy Gupta; Respondent No.3: Uniworth Apparel Limited; Respondent No.4: Webtech Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Specific Performance, Suit for Land, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Jurisdiction Specific Performance Suit for Land Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excel Dealcomm Private Limited

Appellant

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

Respondent No.1

Sanjoy Gupta

Respondent No.2

Uniworth Apparel Limited

Respondent No.3

Webtech Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent No.4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for specific performance filed by Excel was a 'suit for land'.
  2. 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 impleadment application without protest.
  3. 3 Whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred in the present case by virtue of Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The suit was indeed a suit for land since the prayer for issue of sale certificate under SARFAESI Rules necessarily included delivery of possession of immovable property, thereby invoking Clause 12 of Letters Patent; exclusive jurisdiction was contractually granted to Mumbai courts, ousting Calcutta jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Calcutta High Court does not have jurisdiction; plaint must be returned; parties may proceed in appropriate forum in accordance with law