01Facts
The appellants, who were signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12 December 2022 concerning share transfers within the Rehber Group, sued over a proposed transfer of 1,45,833 company shares, alleging breach of the MoU and of their conditional consent.
¶ 4–10, 14–20 · pp. 2–4, 6–11The MoU provided for Bareilly jurisdiction.
¶ 4–10, 14–20 · pp. 2–4, 6–11The learned Single Judge returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of territorial jurisdiction; the plaintiffs appealed.
¶ 4–10, 14–20 · pp. 2–4, 6–1102Issues
i.Whether the MoU’s Bareilly jurisdiction clause governed the plaintiffs’ claims and required the plaint to be returned from the Delhi courts.
¶ 19–26 · pp. 10–12ii.Whether the defendant’s alleged denial of the MoU, his residence in Delhi, or the pendency of other suits in Delhi established territorial jurisdiction there.
¶ 22–30 · pp. 11–1303Law Applied
Under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint must be returned where the court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
¶ 19, 23, 25–26, 33 · pp. 10–12, 14Section 20 CPC governs territorial jurisdiction, and parties may, by agreement, select one among courts that otherwise have jurisdiction; they cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it.
¶ 19, 23, 25–26, 33 · pp. 10–12, 14A party relying on an instrument for its rights cannot selectively reject its burdens, consistent with the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
¶ 19, 23, 25–26, 33 · pp. 10–12, 14The Court also noted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may be available to the plaintiffs when pursuing remedies before the competent court.
¶ 19, 23, 25–26, 33 · pp. 10–12, 14Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 20
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14
04Reasoning
The plaintiffs’ claims—including the declarations and reliefs concerning the share transfers—were founded on the MoU and the conditional consent given under it.
¶ 19–30 · pp. 10–13The MoU’s clauses 9(f) and 10, read together, selected Bareilly as the forum for disputes arising out of or relating to the MoU; it was also executed at Bareilly.
¶ 19–30 · pp. 10–13The conditional consent itself contained no separate jurisdiction clause.
¶ 19–30 · pp. 10–13The Court therefore rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on the MoU for their claims while disregarding its forum term.
¶ 19–30 · pp. 10–13The defendant’s residence in Delhi did not establish jurisdiction, particularly as no material part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen there and defendant No. 2 did not reside there.
¶ 19–30 · pp. 10–13The other Delhi suits did not determine territorial jurisdiction in this case and therefore did not establish it.
¶ 19–30 · pp. 10–1305Holding
The Court held that the Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction and found no ground to interfere with the order returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
¶ 31–34 · pp. 13–14It dismissed the appeal and pending applications, without expressing any view on the merits or on the applicability of the MoU’s dispute-resolution mechanism.
¶ 31–34 · pp. 13–14The plaintiffs remained at liberty to pursue remedies before the competent court at Bareilly and to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if available.
¶ 31–34 · pp. 13–14Original Court PDF
Shakeel Qureshi & Ors.vsRashid Qureshi & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
