In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 8Th Day of April, 2014

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 :BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION No.10108/2014(GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.10109/2014(GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. TANGLIN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICES AT NO.23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR: MR.SHANKAR.V. 2. MR. NITIN BAGAMANE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, TANGLIN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, RESIDING AT NO.69, LAVELLE ROAD, BAGAMANE HOUSE, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. MR. SHANKAR V. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, "MANGALA", 12, ANJANEYA NAGAR, 100FT. RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3 RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. 4. N. BALRAJ SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OPP. TO K.P.T, KADRI HILLS, COMMON MANGALORE-575 004. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI DILIP N.V. ADV. FOR TATRA LEGAL ADVS.) - 2 - AND: SYNOWLEDGE IT SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.1956, NO.120A, ELEPHANT ROCK ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. COMMON MR. AJAYSIMHA ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV. FOR M/S. KING & PATRIDGE, ADV.) WRIT PETITION NO.10108/2014 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1.1.2014 BEING ANN-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN O.S. NO.4037/2010 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 1 TO 5 R/W U/S 151 OF THE CPC TO FRAME THE PROPOSED ISSUE AND TREAT THE SAME AS THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND GIVE A FINDING ON IT AS BEING ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL. WRIT PETITION NO.10109/2014 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1.1.2014 VIDE ANN-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN O.S. NO.4038/2010 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 1 TO 5 R/W U/S 151 OF THE CPC TO FRAME THE PROPOSED ISSUE AND TREAT THE SAME AS THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND GIVE A FINDING ON IT AS BEING ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - - 3 - O R D E R By impugned order, Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 1 to 5 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for framing an issue as mentioned in the application and to treat the same as preliminary issue. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, under Section 23 of the Special Economic Zones, 2005, the suit pertaining to Special Economic Zones will have to be filed before the designated Court. In otherwords, he submits that, Court which is now trying OS No.4037/2010 not being designated Court, has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that regard, an application came to be filed for altering issue No.4 already framed. 3. However, it is the case of the respondent that, the matter does not fall under Special Economic Zones at all, therefore, the Civil Court having jurisdiction to try the suits ordinarily can entertain the suit. - 4 - 4. Under Section 23 of the Special Economic Zones Act, the State Government in which the Special Economic Zone is situated, may with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of that State designate one or more Courts to try the suit of a civil nature arising in the Special Economic Zone. 5. From the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that the State Government may designate any Court to try the suit. Admittedly, as of now, the State Government has not designated any Court to try the suit of civil nature arising in any Special Economic Zone. In view of the same, general rule relating to jurisdiction of the Courts will apply, consequently, the suit has to be filed in the Court having jurisdiction. In view of the same, no useful purpose would be served in altering the issues which are already framed. Accordingly, no interference is called for. Petitions fails and stand dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE KSR .

Load more