HIMANI MALNGIANG Vs. LUMMAWSHUN MINERALS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 3. 11. 2005 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong in T. S. No. 11 (H) of 2005 holding that the Court at Shillong has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the appellants for recovery of compensation for wrong done to his/her landed properties situate at Khadduria and Dilong under the Shella Wahadadarship of the East Khasi Hills District.

(2.) THE controversy arose on the following facts and circumstances. The respondent No. 1 is a company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Hotel Polo Towers, Polo Ground, Oakland Road, Shillong and has acquired landed properties at Nongtrai for mining of limestone and shale mines and for construction of a Cement Plant to be built by its present company, namely, Lafarge Surma Ltd. in Bangladesh. To that end, the respondent No. 1 constructed and installed Ropeway Conveyor belt for linking its minestones quarry site at Nongtrai village, Shella with the Cement Factory site at Chatak, Bangladesh. According to the appellants, the respondent No. 1, while drawing the Conveyor belt, passed through their lands situate at Khadduria and Dilong and had to enter and occupy and use the same without their permission. At this stage, it may be clarified that the appellants are the duly constituted power of attorney holders on behalf of the other owners of the said lands. The appellants are stated to have taken up the matter, firstly, with one Shri S. G. Lyngdoh, one of the Directors of the respondent No. 1 by a series of three letters for settlement of compensation, which did bear any result. This led them to issue pleader's notice dated 2. 6. 2004, which also turned out to be not fruitful. The subsequent letters numbering two sent to the respondent No. 1 in this behalf also came a cropper. This apparently drove the appellants to file the suit claiming the reliefs of recovery of compensation for wrongful possession of their lands by the respondent No. 1 and a prayer for issuing temporary injunction to restrain it from carrying on further construction works on the said lands till the suit was finally decided.

(3.) THE trial court by its order dated 6. 7. 2005 issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from carrying on all kinds of works on the suit land, the order whereof was served upon the said respondent at its registered office at the Hotel Polo Towers Complex. The respondent No. 1 promptly challenged this order before this Court on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction, etc. It appears that this Court by the order dated 29. 7. 2005 in FAO No. 2 (T) of 2005 directed the respondent to approach the trial court to raise those points and at the sometime suspending the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial court till the question of jurisdiction was decided. When the trial court accordingly proceeded with the suit, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting the jurisdiction of the trial court at Shillong to try the suit when the aforesaid lands were situated outside the territorial jurisdiction thereof claiming, inter alia, that though it had its registered office at Hotel Polo Towers at Shillong, it carried on its business at Nongtrai Village, Shella in the District of East Khasi Hills. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed the impugned order allowing the objection of the respondent-company. The trial court is of the view that the respondent-company carried on its business at Nongtrai Village of shella confederacy, East Khasi Hills District and that all its Directors were residing outside the jurisdiction of the court and further that this findings were in consonance with the correspondences taken up by the appellant with the Directors of the company, who were residing out the jurisdiction of the court. Upon these findings, the trial court took the view that it had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the suit and, consequently, directed the appellant to file the plaint before the competent court of jurisdiction for trial.