Legal Reference Library

                                                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION                 WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2014 GSL (India) Ltd.                                       ... Petitioner          v/s     Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. ... Respondents 46. We have carefully perused the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amish Jain1 and with the great respect and utmost humility, we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein. Firstly, we are unable to agree with the finding of t...

Cited: 1) SBP and Company vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. reported in AIR 2006 SC 450= (2005) 8 SCC 618 2) Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. and another v. N.K. Modi (1996 (6) SCC 385 3) R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar and anr. v. R. Chandrasekhara Thevar (AIR 1948 P.C. 12) 4) Atul Singh and others vs. Sunil Kumar Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 602 5) India Household and Healthcare Ltd vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1376 6) Haryana Telecom Ltd. vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2354 7) Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 565 8) Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs v. M. Varadappa Naidu reported in AIR 2004 SC 2609 9) Charanjit Singh Chadha vs. Sudhir Mehra- (2001) 7 SCC 417 10) Manipal Finance Ltd. vs. T. Bangarappa - 1994(Supp) 1 SCC 507 11) Sardar Trilok Singh vs. Satvadeo Tripathi - (1979) 4 SCC 396 12) K.A.Mathai vs. Kora Bibbikutti- (1996) 7 SCC 212 13) Orix Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Jagmandar Sin...

territorial jurisdiction The question, therefore, is as to whether present case is covered by clause  (a) or (d) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the one hand or proviso thereof is applicable and therefore, provisions of Section 20 of the Code can also be invoked. relief sought by the plaintiff was for specific performance of agreement respecting immovable property coupled with relief to deliver possession to him, suit was covered by clause (d) of Section 16 of the Code and proviso had no application.  25. In the present case the plaintiff has not prayed for decree of mandatory injunction limiting to the execution of the lease deed. Had it been so, one would have queried as to whether, in the absence of any relief for possession, principle of K.G. Ringshia (supra) should be applied or that of Vipul Infrastructure (supra). Here, the plaintiff specifically asked for mandatory injunction against the defendants "to take all consequential steps for allowin...