ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED v. RISE PROJECTS PVT LTD
Discusses territorial jurisdiction, cause of action, and forum conveniens, applicable across legal domains.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:10992
Decision Date: 08-07-2025
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11 was invoked as the application was filed under this section seeking reference of disputes. The court ultimately disposed of the Section 11 application without making any reference to arbitration due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Section 9 was mentioned as the Lender had filed a petition under this section before this court. The court noted that the Section 9 petition was connected to the Agreements and was filed in this court. However, the court clarified that it had not yet dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the Section 9 petition, and the issue remained open. The court also disposed of the Section 9 petition due to the absence of territorial jurisdiction. Section 42 was discussed in relation to the argument that once a Section 9 petition has been filed in this court, all future applications must come to this court by operation of Section 42. The court rejected this contention, stating that for Section 42 to operate, the court first approached must have competent jurisdiction. The court reasoned that if any forum, regardless of jurisdiction, could become the exclusive court for all future applications simply by being approached first, it would lead to absurd consequences.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 14 Rule 2 CPC was mentioned in the context of the court not proceeding to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction. The judgment stated, "therefore, the objection having been taken at the first instance itself and the court having not proceeded to decide this question of territorial jurisdiction as contemplated under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, we think we cannot deny relief to the appellant solely on the ground that the High Court has chosen to proceed to decide the case on merit."
- Constitution of India, 1949: Article 226 was mentioned in the context of writ proceedings and the cause of action arising in the territory of the writ court. The judgment stated, "This issue continues to be presented to Courts, not just in civil proceedings, but even in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where too the cause of action ought to have arisen in the territory of the writ court." Article 21 was mentioned in the context of a judgment delivered in a matter involving criminal dispute and consequences having a direct bearing on the personal freedom of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of "forum conveniens" in relation to territorial jurisdiction. It emphasizes that the convenience of the defendant (the Developer) should be considered. The court notes that the Developer has no presence in Maharashtra, and holding arbitration in Mumbai would pose serious inconvenience. The judgment also discusses the concept of "cause of action" and its relevance in determining territorial jurisdiction. It states that the facts relied upon to invoke jurisdiction must constitute facts the proving of which would turn the needle in favor of the applicant. The judgment emphasizes that the cause of action must have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case.
🔒 For Members Only