Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 682 (CAL)

Sankarshan Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bank Of India

2010-06-23

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. G. A. No. 1646 of 2010 is an application for vacating an ad interim order made on a petition under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent staying further proceedings in the City Civil Court suit. 2. THE petitioner in the Clause 13 proceedings claims to be the landlord in respect of premises No.1, Bidhan Sarani. According to the petitioner, it has filed a suit in this Court on February 15, 2010 relating to a portion of the premise's where the respondent-bank is a tenant or otherwise an occupant. It is the petitioner's case that the tenant agreed to make over a portion of the premises to the petitioner by a writing but subsequently failed to deliver possession thereof. It is the petitioner's further case that substantial sums in excess of Rs.10 lakh remain due and owing from the respondent. THE petitioner says that it was after the institution of the suit in this Court (C.S. No. 321 of 2010) that the petitioner was served a copy of an interlocutory application moved by the respondent here in Title Suit No. 531 of 2010 which the respondent instituted in the City Civil Court for a declaration as to its tenancy and ancillary reliefs. THE petitioner says that such notice was received in of about the beginning of March, 2010 and the present petition for transfer of the City Civil Court proceedings to this Court was instituted on March 16, 2010. The respondent to the Clause 13 proceedings has invoked Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by applying to this Court to stay C.S. No. 321 of 2010 on the ground that the suit instituted in the City Civil Court was prior in point of time. Implicit in the invocation of Section 10 and the making of the application (G. A. No.1617 of 2010) is the respondent's acknowledgment or, at least a claim, that the matters in issue in the High Court suit are similar to the matters which are directly and substantially in issue in the City Civil Court suit. 3. THE respondent has applied for vacating the order of March 16, 2010 by which the City Civil Court proceedings were stayed. THE respondent has relied on a judgment reported at 2008 (3) SCC 659 (Kulwinder Kaur vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust) and in particular Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the report. 3. THE respondent has applied for vacating the order of March 16, 2010 by which the City Civil Court proceedings were stayed. THE respondent has relied on a judgment reported at 2008 (3) SCC 659 (Kulwinder Kaur vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust) and in particular Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the report. At Paragraph 23 of the report certain illustrative cases were laid down by the Supreme Court and it was specified that the cases enumerated were in the context of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE respondent says that the grounds made out in the Clause 13 petition and the case that the transfer of the suit is "in the interest of justice" that have been attempted to be made out by the petitioner fall short of the standard set in the judgment cited by the respondent. 4. IT is also the respondent's case that since Section 24 of the Code has been invoked in conjunction with Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, it was incumbent on the petitioner to move the application upon prior notice to the respondent. The expression "in the interest of justice" can take more than a lifetime to grasp and has not been attempted to be comprehensively explained or defined by any judicial authority. There are glimpses of what would amount to be in the interest of justice that may be gleaned from authorities of high repute. There can never be a complete codification all that would fall within the wide sweep of "in the interest of justice." 5. ONE of the cardinal principles that the Court is always alive to is that there should not be multiplicity of proceedings or duplication of the process of adjudication. In the instant case, the basis on Which Clause 13 of the Letters Patent or Section 24 of the Code has been invoked by the petitioner is to avoid the duplication of the process of adjudication which has to be undertaken in the City Civil Court and in this Court. As noticed above, it is the respondent's tacit admission upon bringing the application under Section 10 of the Code that the matters in issue in the suit filed in this Court are also directly and substantially in issue in the City Civil Court suit. 6. As noticed above, it is the respondent's tacit admission upon bringing the application under Section 10 of the Code that the matters in issue in the suit filed in this Court are also directly and substantially in issue in the City Civil Court suit. 6. ON a petition under Section 10 of the Code the suit instituted prior in point of time gets precedence to go to trial. ON an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, it is irrelevant as to whether the suit in this Court has been instituted prior in point of time or the suit which is sought to be transferred has been instituted before. The claim of the petitioner in the suit that it instituted in this Court is valued at over Rs.10 lakh. The petitioner could not have carried such claim even by way of a counterclaim to the City Civil Court. It does not appear that the petitioner had launched the suit in this Court with prior knowledge of the City Civil Court suit or for the purpose of plotting the transfer of the City Civil Court suit to this Court. 7. INTEREST of justice, in the context of the present petition, would demand that the City Civil Court suit be brought to this Court to avoid duplication of the process of adjudication. The grounds which have been taken in the vacating application and the grounds urged by the respondent opposing the prayer for transfer of the City Civil Court suit are found to be of no consequence. 8. IF a rule has been issued, such rule is made absolute and the City Civil Court suit being Title Suit No. 531 of 2010(Central Bank of India v. Sankarshan Pvt. Ltd.) is directed to be transferred to this Court. The petitioner will pay the special messenger's fees for the records to be expeditiously brought from the City Civil Court to this Court. 9. G. A. No. 1649 of 2010 is dismissed and A. I.P. No.10 of 2010 is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.