Territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in transfer petition under Section 25 CPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that its power to transfer suits under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 is limited and cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction [Neilan International Company Limited v. Powerica Limited and Others]..Single-judge Justice JK Maheshwari was of the view that the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the court in which the proceedings are pending and not before the Supreme Court under Section 25 CPC..In the instant case, the petitioner, Neilan International Company Limited filed a transfer petition under Section 25 CPC seeking transfer of petition filed by Powerica Limited under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (1996 Act) from the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) at Bengaluru, Karnataka to the Bombay High Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction in Mumbai.The plea was filed in light of the petitioner having filed Arbitration Petition before the Bombay High Court under Sections 47 and 48 of the 1996 Act for the enforcement of arbitral award passed by arbitral tribunal in International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in London under the ICC Rules 2012..The petitioner argued that the principle of exclusive jurisdiction should be applied in this case to avoid multiplicity of views arising out of the same agreement between the same parties. It was also contended that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act are heard in Mumbai as its head office is in Mumbai and even the promoter is based there.Moreover, the petitioner also submitted that Bangalore Principal City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an award passed in an international commercial arbitration.Opposing the plea, the respondent argued that argument of the petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Bengaluru court cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court in a transfer petition under Section 25 CPC.It was also argued that mere convenience of the party is not a good ground to exercise the power of transfer under Section 25 CPC..The apex court agreed with the contentions of the respondent, and placed reliance on its judgment in Naivedya Associates v. Kirti Nutrients Limited (2021) to ascertain whether the plea of territorial jurisdiction or the lack of the same can be entertained by it under Section 25 CPC.In this backdrop, the top Court observed that:"It is no longer res integra that there is limited scope vested in this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 of CPC and the same cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings before it as the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending."The plea was, therefore, dismissed..[Read Order]