Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bank Of Baroda vs M/S P.M Cott Fibers on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
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. 1209 of 2022
Between:-
BANK OF BARODA THROUGH ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF
MANAGER SHRI RAKESH BHATIA A BODY
CORPORATE AND A BANKING COMPANY
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING
COMPANIES(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER
OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS
HEAD OFFICE AT MANDVI BARODA AND A
BRANCH AMONGST OTHERS AT SENDHWA
BRANCH SITUATED AT KESHAVKUNJ WARD
N. 07 INFRONT OF TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
A.B ROAD SENDHWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(By Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, Advocate for the petitioner.)
AND
1. M/S P.M COTT FIBERS THROUGH ITS
PARTNERS SHRI PRAKHAR MITAL SMT.
REKHA MITTAL AND SHRI SHRI PRAKHAR
MITTAL SITUATED AT 92/1/3 AND 92/3 A.B.
ROAD NEAR BY PASS BRIDGE VILLAGE
NAWALPURA TEHSIL SENDHWA DISTRICT
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. REKHA MITTAL W/O SHRI PRAKASH
MITTAL OCCUPATION: ADULT H.NO-14,
WARD NO.-10, SADAR BAZAR, SENDHWA,
DISTRICT-BARWANI(MP) AND ALSO AT 92/1/3
AND 92/3, A.B. ROAD, NEAR BY PASS BRIDGE,
VILLAGE-NAWALPURA, TEHSIL-SENDHYA,
DISTRICT-BARWANI(MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHRI PRAKASH MITTAL S/O SHRI
RADHESHYAM MITTAL OCCUPATION: NIL
H.NO-14, WARD NO.-10, SADAR BAZAR,
SENDHWA, DISTRICT-BARWANI(MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI PRAKHAR MITTAL S/O SHRI PRAKASH
MITTAL OCCUPATION: NIL H.NO-14, WARD
NO.-10, SADAR BAZAR, SENDHWA, DISTRICT-
BARWANI(MP) AND ALSO AT 92/1/3 AND 92/3,
A.B. ROAD, NEAR BY PASS BRIDGE, VILLAGE-
NAWALPURA, TEHSIL-SENDHYA, DISTRICT-
BARWANI(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
5. SHRI RADHESHYAM MITTAL S/O SHRI
CHANGANLAL MITTAL OCCUPATION: NIL
H.NO-14, WARD NO.-10, SADAR BAZAR,
SENDHWA, DISTRICT-BARWANI(MP) AND
ALSO AT 92/1/3 AND 92/3, A.B. ROAD, NEAR BY
PASS BRIDGE, VILLAGE-NAWALPURA,
TEHSIL-SENDHYA, DISTRICT-BARWANI(MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPUR,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 797-11.
SHANTIKUNJ, SOUTH CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(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.
In 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.
In 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
