TATA COMMUNICATION LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant's Notice of Motion is for determining the preliminary issue regarding inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The application is shown to be taken out under Order 14, Rules 1 & 2 r.w. Sections 9-A and 151 of the C.P.C.. The written statement is not filed. Hence Order 14 cannot be invoked. No interim application is taken out by the Plaintiff. Hence Section 9-A cannot be invoked. However the issue of jurisdiction is required to be tried since it is the Defendant's case that the Civil Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred under Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (Telecom Act).

(2.) In essence what would have to be determined is whether this Court has jurisdiction to proceed with and try this Suit. If the Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred it would be in the interest of both the parties that the Suit be filed in the Court having competent jurisdiction rather than the Suit be simplicitor kept on the files of this Court until after the written statement is filed and the issues framed. Under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. the question relating to the bar created by any law would be required to be seen by the Court upon the averments in the plaint and if the Suit is barred the plaint itself has to be rejected.

(3.) The purpose and object of all these Sections as also the action required to be taken is essentially the same if the Suit is barred by any law the plaint itself can be rejected, the jurisdiction of the Court can be considered pending the interim application and/or the issue with regard to the bar be tried as a preliminary issue; the Suit need not be kept pending.