The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in a bench comprising the Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that territorial jurisdiction is a mixed legal and factual question that a trial judge cannot determine. Territorial challenges do not impair core jurisdiction, and late jurisdictional arguments do not render decisions illegitimate.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a civil complaint against the Respondent, M/s K.C. Hotels, seeking Rs.25.00 lacs in damages. The Court overruled the Petitioner's objections and issued warrants for the attachment of the Petitioner's bank account. The Court reminded the bank to return the decretal amount. The Petitioner cited concerns about the decree's maintainability and executability, but the court disregarded these concerns. However, the sum was not paid.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner challenged the orders based on the Trial Court's failure to resolve a geographical jurisdiction issue, stating that the impugned decree should be declared unconstitutional. The Petitioner's Counsel argues that precedent requires the High Court to intervene in subordinate court rulings.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Adv. Mr. S. K. Anand contends that the executability of a decree can only be challenged in execution proceedings when the Trial Court lacks inherent jurisdiction. He claims that the decree of a competent court is binding on the parties and cannot be disputed in subsequent actions.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that an objection to a party's lack of inherent jurisdiction by the Court is not the same as an objection to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. In the second situation, the judgement would be null and void, but not in the former as was in this case since the Hon’ble Court had inherent power to try the case. However, the Court stated that objections may be brought at any time during the proceedings, including during execution or collateral processes.
The Decision of the Court:
The inherent jurisdiction of the Court differs from territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, which can be asserted at any stage of the proceedings by the parties. However, territorial challenges do not impair core jurisdiction, and late jurisdictional arguments do not render decisions illegitimate. The Court dismisses the petition because it sees no illegality or perversity in the assailed orders.
Case Title: M/s Oikos India Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s K.C. Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Sekhri
Case No.: WP(C) No. 2718/2019 (O&M).
Advocates for Petitioner: Adv. C. M. Koul, Adv. A. R. Bhat
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. S. K. Anand
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
