Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka, vs Sheshappa Dasaraddi Radi, on 24 February, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARN
ATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S
.PATIL
W.P.No. 60870/2012
c/w
W.P.No.60474/2012 (GM-CP
C)
IN W.P.No. 60870/20 12:
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka,
By its Deputy Commissioner,
Gadag,
2. The Chief Engineer,
Karnataka Road Development
Corporation Ltd.,
No. 16/J, Miller Tank Bed Ar
ea,
Timmiah Road Cross,
Bangalore.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Communication and Building
s (North)
Dharwad.
4. The Superintending Engineer
,
Public Works Department,
Dharwad.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Gadag.
2
6. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Gadag.
7. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Ron.
8. The Asst, Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Mundaragi.
9. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Shirahatti.
10. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Nargund. . . Petitioners
(By Smt. Megha C. Kolekar, AGA)
AND:
1. Sri Sheshappa Dasaraddi Radi,
Aged about 67 years,
0cc: Contractor of Saptagiri
Srinivasa, Udaynagar,
Shedanakeri, Dharwad.
2. Karnataka Road Development
Corporation Ltd.,
Reptd by its Managing Director,
No, 16/J, Miller Tank Bed Area,
Thimmaiah Road Cross,
Bangalore. Respondents
. .
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Adv. for Ri
Sri. Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar, Adv for R2)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the District and
3
Sessions Judge, Gadag in M.A.No.12/2011, produced
at Annexcure-F, etc.
IN W.P.No. 60474/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. Karnataka Road Development
Corporation Ltd.,
By its Managing Director,
No. 16/J, Miller Tank Bed Area,
Timmaiah Road Cross,
Bangalore.
2. Chief Engineer,
Karnataka Road Development
Corporation Ltd.,
No. 16/J, Miller Tank Bed Area,
Timmaiah Road Cross,
Bangalore.
(Petitioners are represented by
Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Development Corporation
Ltd. Hubli,
Laxman, S/o Channappa Gangiger,
Aged about 52 years,
0cc: Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Development Corporation
Ltd. Hubli)
Petitioners
(By Sri Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri Sheshappa Dasaraddi Raddi,
Aged about 65 years,
0cc: Contractor of Saptagiri
Srinivasa, Udaynagar,
Shadanakeri, Dharwad.
4
2. State of Karnataka,
By its Deputy Commissioner,
Gadag,
3. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Communication and Building
s (North)
Dharwad.
4. Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Dharwad,
5. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Gadag.
6. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Gadag.
7. Assistant Executive Enginee
r,
Public Works Department,
Ron.
8. Assistant Executive Enginee
r,
Public Works Department,
Mundaragi.
9. Assistant Executive Enginee
r,
Public Works Department,
Shirahatti.
10. Assistant Executive Enginee
r,
Public Works Department,
Nargund.
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basar Respondents
eddy, Adv. for R-1;
Smt. Megha C. Kolekar, AGA for
R-2 to R-10)
5
This writ petition is filed und
er Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of Ind
ia, praying to quash the
order dated 30.09.2011 passed
by the District and
Sessions Judge, Gadag in M,A.N
o.12/2011, produced
at Annexcure-E, etc.
These writ petitions coming on
for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court ma
de the following:
ORDER
W.P.No.60870/2012 is filed by the State Government and its author ities, whereas, W.P.No. 60474/2012 is filed by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Lim ited along with its Chief Engineer. In both these cases, common questions arises for consideration. Common orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are challenged in both these writ petitions. Hence, both writ petitions are clubbed tog ether, heard and are disposed of by this common ord er.
2. Miss. Megha C. Kolekar, lea rned Govt. Pleader is directed to take notice for R-2 to R-10 in W.P. No. 60474/2012. Sri Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar, takes notice for respondent No.2 in W.P.No. 60870/2012.
63.Legality and correctness of the order dated 30.09.2011 passed in M.A . No.12/2011 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is called in question in these writ petitio ns. By the said order, the learned appellate Judg e having set-aside the order passed by the trial cou rt on the preliminary issue, has remitted back the matter to decide the case on merits. Suit O.S.No .5/2009 was filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction restra ining the defendants from rescinding the contract entered into with the plaintiffs for maintenance of State Highways in Gadag District and for rendition of account for the work carried out by the plaintiff in Gadag District for the period between 2005 to 2008.
4. The defendant/petitioners herein having entered appearance, filed wr itten statement raising preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court at Gadag to try the suit. Th ey relied on clause 29(c) of the agreement, wherein it is provided that the 7 Courts at Bangalore will alone have juri sdiction to try the dispute arising between the parties . The Trial Court having tried the preliminary issu e, came to the conclusion that the suit ought to have been filed before the competent Court in Bangalo re and hence ordered for return of plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the competent cou rt. This was challenged in appeal. The appellate court has reversed the order passed by the tria l court holding that the agreement regarding mainten ance of State Highways and roads of Gadag Distric t was executed at Gadag and work was carried out at Gadag and therefore, the Court at Gadag had juri sdiction to try the suit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub mits that as per clause 29(c) of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to make his grievance bef ore the Chief Engineer, thereafter approach the Ma naging Director, if he was aggrieved by the decision of the Chief Engineer and after the Managing Director took 8 decision, then in case of any grievance , the defendant was required to file a suit in the Co urt at Bangalore.
He urges that this clause in the agr eement has been expressly agreed upon by the defendant and therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to institute any proceedings before the Court at Qaclag. As the Managing Director had, in fact, turned down the grievance made by the defendant and the Managing Director was residing in Bangalor e and the decision was taken by the Managing Direct or at Bangalore the substantial part of the cause of act ion for filing suit has arisen at Bangalore, hence the sui t ought to have been filed at Bangalore, is the contention of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant respondent submits that no part of cause of act ion has arisen at Bangalore and therefore, the app ellate Court was right and justified in sending the matter back to the trial court for being considered on merits.
97. Upon hearing the learned Counse l for the parties and on careful considerati on of the entire materials on record, the legal positio n is very clear that, where two or more Courts are competent to entertain a suit consequent upon a part of cause of action arising within their limits, if parties to the contract agree to confer jurisdiction in one of such Courts to try the dispute, such an agr eement is valid and binding.
8. In the instant case, if it can be said that , part of cause of action has indeed arisen wit hin the limits of the courts at Bangalore, then the suit ought to have been filed only before the Civil Court at Bangalore, in terms of the agreement, particularl y, clause 29(c).
However, if no part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of the Civil Cou rts at Bangalore, then, by the agreement the parties jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Courts at Bangalore and the suit cannot be instituted at Ban galore. Both the Courts below have not recorded any positive and 10 specific finding with regard to this aspect of the matter. The appellate court has also not recorded any specific finding as to wheth er the Civil Courts at Bangalore do not have any jurisdiction. In the absence of such finding, the appellate Court was in error in directing the trial co urt to proceed with the matter on merits. Even if the Court at Gadag has jurisdiction, if the Court at Bangalore also has got jurisdiction on account of part of cause of action having arisen within its lim its, then the parties have to file the suit at Bangalore be cause they have agreed to that effect. The trial court has also not recorded any finding with regard to the cause of action having not arisen within the limits of Bangalore.
9. Hence, the appropriate cours e is to set-aside the order passed by both the Courts and direct the trial Court to consider afr esh the preliminary issue and record a finding on the same, keeping in mind the observations made in thi s order by this Court. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
C-) CD
CD
0 i
r* 0
r* 0
CD
o CD
--
CD
C)
CD
0
o CD
o
CD
CD
CD
C)
CD C)
0
CJD
S CD
0Th CD
txi 0