- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL No. 1071 OF 1997 Asset Reconstruction (India) Company .. Appellant Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Durgesh Khanapurkar i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Appellant. None for the Respondents CORAM : D. K DESHMUKH AND Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA , JJ DATED : JUNE 15, 2010. PC :- 1. By this appeal, the appellant who is original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 22nd October, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chamber Summons No. 1250 of 1997. 2. The relevant facts are – that Suit No. 3287 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff bank against the principal debtor namely Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and others, seeking money decree against the defendants and also claiming foreclosure of mortgage of certain - 2 - property which was created to secure the loan, advanced to defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, a part of cause of action has arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, application for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was filed. That leave was granted. A Chamber Summons was taken out by defendant No.1 for revoking the leave, granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The case of the defendant No.1 was that though a small part of cause of action has arisen at Bombay, substantial part of cause of action has arisen outside Bombay. Many of the properties are situated outside Bombay and therefore, leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked. There were several defenses raised on behalf of the plaintiff. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the suit has been filed for recovery of loan amount, granted under various agreements and that many of the agreements have been executed at Bombay, and all the monies/amounts have been paid at Bombay. It was also contended that the principal debtor – defendant No. 1 has its branch office in Bombay. One of the defenses raised was that – whether substantial part of the cause of action arose at Bombay or not, was a question of fact. In any case it is a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore, that question should not be decided in the Chamber Summons. - 3 - But an issue should be framed on the question – “whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit?” and that question should be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The learned Single Judge before whom the Chamber Summons was placed for hearing, disposed of the Chamber Summons by an order dated 22nd October, 1997 and revoked the leave, granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The plaintiff has filed present appeal, challenging that order. It appears that defendant No.1 had made a Reference before the BIFR and because of that, hearing of the appeal was adjourned sine die. However, it appears now the BIFR has granted leave to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit and consequently, this appeal was allowed to be proceeded, and therefore, now this appeal can be heard and therefore, we have heard the appeal. 3. None appears for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has informed us that after the notification was issued for establishment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions at Bombay, Suit No. 3287 of 1997 has been transferred in accordance with provisions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is pending before that Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel - 4 - appearing for the appellant/ plaintiff. We find that the order of the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that a small part of cause of action for filing the suit has arisen at Bombay. However, the learned Single Judge, considering the aspect of balance of convenience, has held that leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is liable to be revoked. The learned Single Judge has also held that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided only on the basis of documents and no oral evidence is required to be recorded. 4. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought not to have rejected the contention, raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the question of jurisdiction should be left open, to be tried after framing of issue and after the parties leaving evidence. In our opinion, in view of the subsequent development namely transfer of the suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it will not be appropriate for this Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction, at this stage because now the Debt Recovery Tribunal will have to decide the question – whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the light of the provisions of the Debt Recovery Tribunals Act. In our opinion, therefore, it will not be appropriate for us to record any finding on the question whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was rightly granted or not. In the facts and - 5 - circumstances of the case, in our opinion, therefore, following order will meet the ends of justice. (i) The order dated 22nd October, 1997 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1250 of 1997 is hereby set aside. (ii) It is directed that the Debt Recovery Tribunal to which the suit has been transferred, should consider the question - whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in accordance with the law? after permitting both the sides to lead evidence, both documentary and the oral. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA , J.] [D. K DESHMUKH , J.]