HINDUSTAN LAMINATORS PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length at the stage of admission of this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the 'Code'). By the order dated 20.06.03, which is under appeal, the learned Judge of 3rd Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta held that the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit, being Title Suit No. 1653 of 2002, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under section 9 of the Code. As such, the learned Judge refused to pass any order on the injunction petition filed by the appellant and rejected the same with costs.

(2.) The appeal is against that judgment.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal argued that the learned Trial Judge erred in law while construing the provisions of section 9 of the Code. The learned counsel submitted that unless there is any specific statutory bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Court should have entertained the civil suit. It was also urged that, in this case, there is no such statutory bar. It was also argued that the implied bar of jurisdiction cannot be assumed rightly unless such an implication is apparent or obvious. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel cited several decisions.