Bank Of Baroda A Bodycorporate And ... vs M/S Reliance Cotton Corporation A ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1779 MP

                                     1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                   &
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                         ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 1205 of 2022

         Between:-
         BANK OF BARODA A BODYCORPORATE AND
         A BANKING COMPANY CONSTITUTED UNDER
         THE BANKING COMPANIES(ACQUISITION
         AND TRANSGER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT
         1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANDVI
         BARODA AND A BRANCH AMO THROUGH ITS
         AUTHORISED       OFFICER   AND   CHIEF
         MANAGER SHRI RAKESH BHATIA WARD NO.
         07, IN FRONT OF TELEPHONE EXCHANGE A.B.
         ROAD, SENDHWA DISTRICT BARWANI, M.P.
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                     .....PETITIONER
         (BY Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, Advocate for the petitioner)

         AND

1.       M/S RELIANCE COTTON CORPORATION A
         PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN THROUGH ITS
         PROPRIETOR SHRI PRAKHAR MITTAL SUKH
         SAMRADDHI    NAGAR,  NIWALI   ROAD,
         SENDHWA   DISTRICT-  BARWANI    M.P.
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       SHRI PRAKHAR MITTAL S/O SHRI PRAKASH
         MITTAL OCCUPATION: PROPRIETOR OF M/S
         RELIENCE COTTON CORPORATION R/O
         HOUSE NO. 14 WARD NO. 10 SADAR BAZAR
         SENDHWA    DISTRICT   BARWANI    M.P.
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.       SHRI   PRAKASH   MITTAL   S/O   SHRI
         RADHESHYAM MITTAL R/O HOUSE NO.14
         WARD NO. 10 SADAR BAZAR SENDHWA
         DISTRICT   BARWANI   M.P.   (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

4.       SMT. REKHA MITTAL W/O SHRI PRAKASH
         M ITTAL R/O HOUSE NO. 14 WARD NO. 10
         SADAR    BAZAR   SENDHWA    DISTRICT
         BARWANI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.       DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPUR
         THROUGH       ITS     REGISTRAR 797-11,
         SHANTIKUNJ, SOUTH CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                                  2
        (BY Shri Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4)
                      (Heard through Video Conferencing)
      This petition coming on for territorial jurisdiction this day, JUSTICE
SUJOY PAUL passed the following:
                                     ORDER

Heard on the question of maintainability.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the property in question, loan transaction and Bank is situated at Barwani within the territorial jurisdiction of the Indore Bench.

Shri Rajesh Maindiretta submits that in view of the relief No.7(i), the petition can be entertained at Principal seat because a direction is prayed for against the Debt Recovery Tribunal situated at Jabalpur to decide the application for attachment filed by the petitioner/Bank. Thus, part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this Bench.

Shri Maindiretta fairly submits that in case this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and deems it proper to relegate the petitioner to approach the appropriate Bench (Indore Bench), the petitioner may be protected for a reasonable time so that they may file appropriate proceedings before the concerned Bench and argue their interim prayer.

Shri Shekhar Sharma, Advocate opposes the said prayer regarding the interim relief. Although, he raised the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat.

We have heard the parties on this aspect.

The Apex Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Vs. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 in para 30 has opined that:-

3 0 . We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of c a us e of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may

refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.

I n our opinion, it will be convenient for the petitioner and the respondents to contest a litigation before the Indore Bench because both the them are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of said Bench. Thus, from the angle of convenience, expenses, travel etc., it will be apposite to relegate them to avail the said remedy before the Indore Bench. Thus, by applying the principle of 'forum convenience' and the judgment of Kusum Ingots (supra), we are inclined to hold that petitioner may approach the Indore Bench.

Resultantely, this petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the

petitioner to approach the appropriate Bench.

I n the interest of justice, it is directed that if the petitioner file fresh proceedings before the Indore Bench/appropriate Bench during the course of this week, till their prayer for interim relief is considered by the Bench, the respondents shall not create any third party right or alienate the property in questions. The appropriate Bench will certainly consider the interim prayer and pass order in accordance with law on its own merits.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

                                        (SUJOY PAUL)                                    (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                           JUDGE                                               JUDGE
                                   pn




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE
Date: 2022.02.09 10:16:10 IST