Kiranmal Zumerlal Borana Marawadi Vs. Dnyanoba Bajirao Khot and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Civil Appeal No. 2612 of 1983|
|Judge|| A.N.Sen and; D.A. Desai, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1983SC461; (1983)4SCC223|
|Appellant||Kiranmal Zumerlal Borana Marawadi|
|Respondent||Dnyanoba Bajirao Khot and ors.|
|Appellant Advocate|| S.K. Dholakia, Adv|
|Respondent Advocate|| S.V. Deshpande and ; N.M. Ghatate, Advs.|
|Prior history||From the Judgment and Order dated October 19, 1978 of the Bombay High Court in F.A. No. 536 of 1978--|
.....such jurisdiction would or could be restricted by the agreements entered into by and between the parties. the parties have clearly stipulated and agreed that no other court, but only the court at jaipur will have jurisdiction to try and decide the proceedings arising out of the said agreements, and therefore, and therefore, it is the civil court at jaipur which would alone have jurisdiction to try and decide such issue and that is the court which is competent to entertain such proceedings. the said court being competent to entertain such proceedings, the said court at jaipur alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the reference. the arbitration proceedings have to be made at jaipur court and in no other court. it..........special leave granted. 2. this appeal is directed against the decision of the high court in first appeal learned counsel 536 of 1978 by which the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and order of the learned civil judge (senior division) in special jurisdiction suit learned counsel 1 of 1974, was dismissed in limine. the high court dismissed the appeal by one word order 'dismissed'. as numerous points both of law and facts appear to have been raised in the appeal, which again were sought to be canvassed before us in fairness to the parties and to us some reasons ought to have appeared in the judgment indicating what appealed to the high court to be in entire agreement with the learned trial judge. let it be remembered that it was the first appeal against the.....
D.A. Desai, J.
1. Special Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the decision of the High Court in First Appeal learned Counsel 536 of 1978 by which the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Special Jurisdiction Suit learned Counsel 1 of 1974, was dismissed in limine. The High Court dismissed the appeal by one word order 'Dismissed'. As numerous points both of law and facts appear to have been raised in the appeal, which again were sought to be canvassed before us in fairness to the parties and to us some reasons ought to have appeared in the judgment indicating what appealed to the High Court to be in entire agreement with the learned trial Judge. Let it be remembered that it was the first appeal against the decision of the trial Court and therein the appellant can and has raised serious questions of law and disputed decision on facts. We, therefore, think that this is pre-eminently a fit case which ought to have been admitted and disposed of on merits. As we remit the matter to the High Court, we do not express any opinion on the contentions of the parties. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal in limine and remit the case to the High Court to dispose it of on merits after hearing the parties. There shall be no order as to costs of the hearing in this Court.