Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Somnath Chatterjee And Another vs Sharmila Shetty on 1 October, 2015
Ú$ 1
ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19418/
2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/05/2015
in FMA No.760/2015 passed by the High Court of Calcutta)
SOMNATH CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER Petitioner
(s)
VERSUS
SHARMILA SHETTY Respondent
(s)
(With appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and
interim relief and office report)
Date : 01/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratnesh Rai, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv.
Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv.
Mr. Jeevan B. Panda, Adv.
Mr. Abhisar Bairasi, Adv.
for M/s. Khaitan & Co.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Monish Panda, Adv.
Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv.
Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv.
for M/s. Victor Moses & Associates
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Two issues were raised before the Trial Co urt.
Signature Not Verified
Firstly, whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2015.10.05 17:14:51 IST Reason: entertain the petition filed by the petitioner and whether the Trial Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
2On the merits of the controversy, the Trial Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, but this was upset by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2015.
With regard to the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court, no decision was rendered either by the Trial Court or by the High Court.
In our opinion, if it is found that the Trial Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, it may perhaps not be necessary for us to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2015. On the other hand, if it is found that the Trial Court did have territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order dated 8 th May, 2015 would require consideration.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the Trial Court renders a decision on the issue raised by the petitioner, viz., the Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. Once that issue is decided, one way or the other, by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court and, if it is necessary, the petitioner can reagitate the correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 8 th May, 2015. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to that effect. 3 We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2015 or on the issue whether the Trial Court has territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
The special leave petition stands disposed of in view of the above.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER