Lake City Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

The appellant has made a grievance against the order passed by the Tribunal below on February 28, 2014 whereby prayer of the appellant for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue has been rejected and a costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellant. The OA was filed in the year 2008 and is pending adjudication. Issue of jurisdiction has not been raised for the first time but had earlier also been raised before the Tribunal below and had reached this Tribunal as well not once but on more than one occasion when the orders passed by the Tribunal below were challenged.

On February 10, 2009 preliminary objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal below was raised and was considered by the Tribunal below. It was held by the Tribunal below that on the basis of averments made in the application, the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to try the case and that the plea raised by the appellant regarding signing of form in black is stereotype defence. The said application was accordingly dismissed.

In the year 2012, the appellant filed I.A. 554 before the Tribunals below seeking permission to cross-examine the Bank witnesses. The prayer of the appellant to cross-examine witnesses was perhaps declined which he challenged before this Tribunal. When the matter came up before this Tribunal, Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the observations made while disposing of the interim application regarding jurisdiction decided on February 10, 2009 are prejudicial to the defence of the defendant taken in the OA. The Counsel, however, conceded that to decide the said pleas, cross-examination of the Bank witness may not be necessary. As per the Counsel, these pleas could be decided on the basis of the documents/evidence available on record. The Counsel accordingly pleaded before this Tribunal that the said pleas be kept open and be decided while disposing of the OA. The prayer was that the Tribunal below should consider these pleas while deciding the OA.

On the basis of the submissions made, the Tribunal came to take a view that there was no need to issue notice and accordingly disposed of the appeal by observing that the Tribunal below will decide the OA without influenced by the observations made in the order dated February 10, 2009 or in the impugned order, which was under challenge in Appeal No. 03 of 2013 which arose out of order passed in I.A. No. 554 of 2012.

The appellant came before this Tribunal yet again by way of Appeal No. 315 of 2013 which was filed against the order dated 17th May, 2014 whereby the I.A. filed by the appellant for framing issue as proposed and for directing the Bank to adduce its evidence in respect of the same prior to the hearing final arguments was rejected. It was pleaded that the Counsel representing the appellant before the Tribunal below was in personal difficulty and so could not appear when the order impugned in the appeal was passed. The proxy Counsel had appeared on behalf of the Counsel for the appellant, but statedly had not made any submission. Grievance was that the order impugned order in I.A. No. 106 of 2013 was passed only after hearing the Counsel for the Bank. Once these contentions were not disputed this Tribunal, disposed of the said appeal by setting aside the order under challenge and by remanded the case back to the Tribunal below for disposal of the I.A. No. 106 of 2013 afresh in which this order was passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The present impugned order is passed in I.A. No. 106 of 2013 in terms of the remand order passed by this Tribunal. This order is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal below has still relied upon the observations made in the order passed in I.A. No. 554 of 2008, which observations could not have been considered because of the earlier order passed by this Tribunal and referred to above.

Mr. Bhandari has invited my attention to the contents of para 7 of the impugned order where reference has been made to an order passed in I.A. No. 565 of 2008 decided on February 10, 2009. The Tribunal below then has gone on to make certain observations that the appellant/applicant has tried to agitate the same issue which had been earlier adjudicated. It is viewed by the Tribunal that this issue of jurisdiction is to be decided while finally disposing of the OA as was the direction of this Tribunal. In this background the Tribunal below seems to have recorded some observations.

The order passed by the Tribunal below does not indicate if it has expressed any intention to rely upon the earlier view formed by the predecessor of the Tribunal below about the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the O.A. Once this Tribunal had disposed of the earlier appeal clearly stating that the issue of jurisdiction would be taken up while deciding the OA finally uninfluenced by the observations made in the order dated February 10, 2009. The Tribunal below would remain bound to follow the same. The Tribunal below would always be conscious of the order while considering and deciding the plea of jurisdiction at the time of deciding the OA finally. The Tribunal below appears justified in observing that the issue of jurisdiction is being raised over and over again. Once it is held that the plea of jurisdiction would be considered while finally disposing of the OA uninfluenced by the earlier observations, this ought to have satisfied the appellant not to agitate the matter again and again. Even if the appellant has attempted to raise the same issue repeatedly his prayer could have been rejected by observing that it will considered while deciding the OA. The prayer have been rejected by imposing cost due to the conduct of the appellant in moving such application unnecessarily. The appellant seems to be under an apprehension that earlier view of the Tribunal may prevail. His approach may not be justified but may have to be appreciated from apprehension arising in his mind. So viewed, the cost imposed may appear to be unjustified. To put an end to the issue, it is made clear that the plea of jurisdiction would now be decided by the Tribunal while deciding the OA finally. The Tribunal below would decide the issue of jurisdiction, un-influenced by any observation recorded by the Tribunal in its earlier order, dated February 10, 2009. The order imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- is set aside. The present appeal is disposed of in the terms above.