Madras High Court
M/S.Miraj Entertainment Limited vs A V R N Hotels Private Limited on 7 March, 2023
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
O.S.A. (CAD) No.12 of 2023
M/s.Miraj Entertainment Limited,
rep. by Samir Subhash Samant
Vice President : Legal
705-706, Eureka Towers,
Wing B, Mind Space, Off Link Road,
Behind Toyota Show Room,
Malad (West), Mumbai-400 064,
Maharastra. .. Appellant
Vs
A V R N Hotels Private Limited,
12, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,
Inner Ring Road,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai-600 106. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial
Courts Act read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules
against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.01.2023 passed in
A.No.5859 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div) DR.No.140611 of 2022.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
For the Appellant : Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran
For the Respondent : Mr.R.Srinivas
Senior Counsel
assisted by
Mr.M.Santhanaraman
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This original side appeal has been directed against the fair and
decreetal order dated 5.1.2023 of the learned Single Judge made in
A.No.5859 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div) DR.No.140611 of 2022.
2. The appellant had file the suit, inter alia, seeking a
declaration to declare that the unilateral termination of the lease
deed dated 4.12.2019 by termination notice dated 8.11.2022 and
23.11.2022 issued by the respondent is null and void; apart from
permanent injunction restraining the respondent, their men and
agents or any other persons claiming or acting under them from
acting in derogation of the lease deed dated 4.12.2019 as amended
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
by the Minutes of Meeting dated 7.12.2021, e-mail dated 7.3.2022
issued by the respondent and purchase orders dated 30.3.2022
issued by the appellant in any manner whatsoever has filed along
with an application. Along with the suit, the appellant filed
A.No.5859 of 2022 seeking leave to sue under Clause 12 of the
Letters Patent.
3. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5.1.2023,
dismissed the said application and directed the Registry to return
the plaint and suit documents together with court fee paid by the
appellant for a proper re-presentation of the plaint before the
jurisdictional Court in Kancheepuram District immediately.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned Single Judge arrived at a wrong finding that the suit filed by
them would be barred under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, as the
appellant and the respondent have conferred the jurisdiction on the
Courts in Kancheepuram, Chennai, in respect of the dispute arising
out of the lease deed dated 4.12.2019 executed between them. He
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
pleaded that the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge is
running contrary to the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court and also against Clause 12 of the Letters
Patent dealing with four different instances.
5. Adding further, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge would show
that the lease deed dated 4.12.2019, as amended by the Minutes of
Meeting dated 7.12.2021 and the e-mail dated 7.3.2022 and also
the purchase orders dated 30.3.2022, has effectively become a
lease-cum-job work agreement whereby the respondent agreed to
carry out the task set out in the purchase orders and, in such case,
considering the hybrid nature of the agreement between the parties,
the enforcement of the agreement would require only the obedience
of the respondent and, therefore, this Court has got jurisdiction to
grant all the reliefs that are prayed for by the appellant. However,
this has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge
while passing the order, he pleaded.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
6. Continuing his argument, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in arriving at a
conclusion based on the judicial precedents cited in the course of
arguments such as (i) Adcon Electronics Private Limited v
Daulat and another, (2001) 7 SCC 698; (ii) Moolji Jaitha and
Co. v. Khandesh Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1950 FC
83; and (iii) Debendra Nath Chowdhury v. Southern Bank
Limited, AIR 1960 Cal 626. He submitted that the aforesaid
precedents squarely clarify the position of law on suit for land and
applying the said precedents to the case on hand, the suit filed by
the appellant is not a suit for land. Therefore, the approach adopted
by the learned Single Judge is untenable in law. Thus, the learned
counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single
Judge.
7. In reply, Mr.R.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned counsel, submitted that A.No.5859 of
2022 filed by the appellant seeking leave to institute a suit against
the respondent cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the suit filed
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
by the appellant was nothing but a suit for land/immovable property
situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and within the
jurisdiction of Kancheepuram District. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge has rightly disallowed the application holding that the
property in question falls within the jurisdiction of Courts at
Kancheepuram. Since the finding arrived at by the learned Single
Judge is based on the documents coupled with law, there is no
ground to interfere with the same, he pleaded.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
9. Prima facie, the property in respect of which the lease
agreement dated 4.12.2019 was executed between the parties, qua
which a prayer for specific performance is sought by the appellant in
the plaint, falls within the jurisdiction of Courts at Kancheepuram.
In view of the above, the learned Single Judge directed the Registry
to return the plaint and suit documents together with court fee to
the appellant to be presented before the jurisdictional Court in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
Kancheepuram District. In paragraph 30, the learned Single Judge
held as under:
“30. A reading of the averment in the plaint and the
affidavit filed in support of the application and the
documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff in respect
of the suit indicates that the present suit filed by the
applicant/plaintiff would be barred under Clause 12
of the Letters Patent Act. The applicant and
respondent have also conferred the jurisdiction on
the Courts in Kancheepuram, Chennai in respect of
the dispute arising out of the lease deed dated
04.12.2019 executed between them.”
10. We are of the view that such findings arrived at by the
learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with and the reasonings
given by the learned Single Judge in dismissing A.No.5859 of 2022
are perfectly correct. That apart, on a perusal of the materials, it is
clear that the parties have conferred the jurisdiction on the Courts
in Kancheepuram first and Chennai as second in respect of the
dispute arising out of the lease deed dated 4.12.2019 executed
between them. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. Hence, the
appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. A suit for specific performance of lease agreement
automatically leads to passing of possession/interest and, hence,
would be a suit on land. This apart, in this case, though couched in
different language “to act as per purchase order”, “to act as per
lease agreement”, possession is effectively prayed in the suit and,
hence, it is a suit on land.
12. Accordingly, the original side appeal is dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
07.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
To:
The Sub Assistant Registrar
Original Side
High Court, Madras.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) No.12 of 2023
T.RAJA, ACJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
O.S.A. (CAD) No.12 of 2023
07.03.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
