Calcutta High Court
M/S Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd vs Prasenjit Das & Anr on 10 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Commercial Division
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
AP/464/2022
M/S Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd.
VS
Prasenjit Das & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Swatarup Banerjee Adv.
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Sankar, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Arik Banerjee. Adv.
Ms. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv.
Last heard on: November 04, 2022
Judgment on: November 10, 2022
Judgement Dictated in Court:
1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties with regard to point of
jurisdiction.
2. The counsel on behalf of the respondent has placed the Hon'ble
Supreme Court judgments in M/s. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd.
-v- Aditya Kumar Chatterjee arising out of SLP (C) No. 17397 -
17398 of 2021 and also in Union of India -v- Adani Exports Ltd.
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567 to support his case that the Calcutta
High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
3. According to the respondent, the parties are outside the jurisdiction of
the Calcutta High Court and the agreement was signed in Maheshtala,
that is, a place outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this
Court. He further submits that there is no specific pleading by the
petitioner in the Section 9 application with regard to seeking leave to
move the aforesaid application because part of the cause of action has
arisen within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court.
4. Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has placed reliance on clauses 18(c), 19 and Schedule-1 of the loan
agreement to indicate that parties have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction
of Kolkata and the place or venue of arbitration is also Kolkata. He has
further placed reliance upon the signature page of the loan agreement to
indicate that the aforesaid agreement was signed at the Bankshall
Court, Kolkata. According to Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, since the
agreement was signed within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High
Court, part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of
this Court. Furthermore, the fact that exclusive jurisdiction has been
given to Courts at Calcutta along with the place of venue being at
Kolkata, he submits that the Calcutta High Court being the principal
Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has the jurisdiction to entertain
the present petition.
5. Upon hearing the parties, I am of the view that the documents reveal
that the agreement was signed within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta
High Court. Further, the judgment cited by the respondent in M/s Ravi
Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts
as in that case the respondent himself had invoked the jurisdiction of
another district court before moving to the Calcutta High Court under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore
was estopped from contending that the parties had agreed to confer
exclusive jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court to the exclusion of
other Courts. Furthermore, the agreement between the parties in that
judgment did not confer jurisdiction to Kolkata as the agreement was
not executed in Kolkata nor any other part of the cause of action had
arisen in Kolkata. Additionally, neither of the parties to the said
agreement construed the arbitration clause to designate Kolkata as the
seat of arbitration. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment does not help the
respondent's case.
6. With regards to the judgment in Union of India -v- Adani Exports
Ltd. (supra) cited by the respondent, it is to be noted that the principles
that emerge from this judgment do not in any manner impact the
present case as those are general principles of law which are acceptable
by this Court.
7. Upon examination of the documents, I am of the view that part of the
cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
court at Calcutta, parties have decided in the agreement to have the
venue in Kolkata and have also conferred the jurisdiction to the Courts
in Kolkata. In light of the above, in my view, this Court has jurisdiction
to entertain this matter.
8. The interim order that is subsisting shall continue till one week after
the Christmas Vacation.
9. The parties are directed to file affidavits in this matter. The affidavit in
opposition must be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if
any, be filed within one week thereafter. The parties are granted liberty
to mention this matter for further hearing.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be
made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite
formalities.
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
