Authority: Calcutta High Court (Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt)
Order Date: 29 September 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Bhutoria Brothers Private Limited (Appellant) vs Union of India (Respondent).
- Case Numbers: Original suit CS/86/2014; Interim Application GA/8/2026; Appeal APOT/175/2026 IA No: GA/1/2026.
- Nature of Proceeding: Civil appeal challenging a judgment and order dated 31 August 2026 that had returned the plaint to a Court at Howrah under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, on the ground that no material part of the cause of action arose within the High Court's jurisdiction.
- Background: The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (now a company under the Companies Act, 2013), claimed damages arising from a customs search and seizure conducted at the premises of its tenant. The customs authorities kept the tenant’s godown in possession from 23 August 2003 to 2 April 2013. The appellant alleges loss of use of the property and seeks a money decree.
- Key Legal Points Raised:
- The appellant argued that the suit is for damages, not a suit for land, and that the registered office of the plaintiff lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court, making the cause of action disclosable there.
- The respondent contended that the suit concerns an immovable property situated outside the High Court’s jurisdiction and therefore should be treated as a suit for land, relying on Bengal Glass & Silicate Works Vs. Lalit Mohan Bijlani (AIR 1986 Calcutta 57).
- The Court referred to Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das (1994 4 SCC 225), wherein the Supreme Court held that a company's residence is its registered office and cases should ordinarily be filed where that office is located.
- Both parties accepted the proposition from Morgan Stanley; no contrary argument was advanced.
- Procedural History: The Single Judge had held the suit was not a suit for land but still returned the plaint on jurisdictional grounds, invoking Order VII Rule 10. The appellant filed the present appeal.
Final Outcome
- The appellate court set aside the judgment and order dated 31 August 2026.
- The Interim Application GA/8/2026 is dismissed.
- The original suit CS/86/2014 is remanded to the learned Trial Judge for a decision on the merits.
- All pending applications as of the date of the impugned order are revived and will be heard as if live.
- The appeal (APOT/175/2026) and pending applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
- The court expressly noted that it has not adjudicated on the substantive claim for damages; those issues remain for trial.
Topics: Jurisdiction, Civil Suit, Land Suit