Calcutta High Court Sets Aside City Civil Court's Injunction for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction The Court ruled that mere receipt of contract termination notice does not confer jurisdiction, emphasizing relief in damages over specific performance for service contracts.
In a significant ruling on December 18, 2025, the Calcutta High Court Division Bench, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, overturned an ad interim injunction granted by the City Civil Court at Calcutta in the case Fabwarth Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Fire Events and Ors. The injunction was initially granted in connection with a suit filed by Fabwarth Promoters Pvt. Ltd. against Fire Events, seeking multiple reliefs related to a service contract terminated by the defendant.
The crux of the dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain the suit and grant interim relief. Fabwarth Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, argued that the termination notice for the contract, received at their office located within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, did not suffice to confer jurisdiction. Instead, they contended that jurisdiction should be determined by the location of the immovable property involved in the business, which was situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said court.
The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the termination of a contract is effective once decided by the contracting party, independent of the receipt of the termination notice. As such, the mere receipt of the termination email within a particular jurisdiction does not grant the court territorial jurisdiction. The bench cited the precedent set in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, affirming that jurisdiction cannot be based solely on the location where a communication is received.
Furthermore, the court addressed the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The suit was essentially for specific performance of a service contract, which the court noted was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as such contracts typically require personal performance. Instead, the court suggested that the appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs lay in seeking damages.
The High Court also criticized the City Civil Court for granting an injunction that touched upon immovable property situated outside its jurisdiction, highlighting the error in granting relief beyond the scope of the court's territorial reach. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional limits as prescribed under Sections 16 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
As a result of these findings, the High Court set aside the City Civil Court's order granting the ad interim injunction. The bench directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which pertains to the rejection of the plaint on jurisdictional grounds. Additionally, the trial court was instructed to decide the injunction application based on the outcome of the jurisdictional hearing.
This ruling not only clarifies the application of territorial jurisdiction in civil suits but also reinforces the legal principle that service contracts necessitating personal performance cannot be enforced through specific performance but rather through claims for damages.
Bottom Line:
Territorial jurisdiction of a court cannot be conferred merely because a termination notice was received within its jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 16 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code
Fabwarth Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Fire Events, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825302
