http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: ALIGARH   MUSLIM   UNIVIERSITY  ENTERPRISES  (P)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VINAY ENGINEERING ENTREPRISES (P)

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1993

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  (4) 710

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Special leave granted. 2.   We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court  of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case  where it  had  absolutely  no  jurisdiction.   The  contracts   in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to  be carried out at Aligarh,, even the contracts  provided that  in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court  alone  will have jurisdiction.  The arbitrator was from Aligarh and  was to  function  there.  Merely because the  respondent  was  a Calcutta-based  firm,  the High Court of Calcutta  seems  to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting  a queer  line  of reasoning.  We are constrained to  say  that this is a case of abuse of Jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent  deliberately  moved  the  Calcutta  High   Court ignoring  the fact that no part of the cause of  action  had arisen  within the jurisdiction of that Court.   It  clearly shows  that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High  Court was thoroughly unsustainable. 3.In  the  result we allow these appeals, set  aside  the impugned  orders  of  the High Court  and  direct  that  the proceedings initiated in the High Court of Calcutta shall be returned to the respondent for presentation in proper court. The hearing cost is quantified at Rs 10,000 which Respondent 1  Vinay  Engineering  will  pay, in  any  case  before  the application is presented to the Aligarh Court. 714