{"id":18556,"date":"2009-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-23T20:55:41","modified_gmt":"2017-05-23T15:25:41","slug":"balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n      TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.78 OF 2009\n\n\nBalaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd.           ... Petitioner\n\n         Vs.\n\nM\/s Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) Pvt. Ltd.    ...   Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   This Transfer Petition under Article 139A(2) of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India read with the relevant<\/p>\n
provisions of the Supreme Court Rules and Section<\/p>\n
25 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by<\/p>\n
Balaji Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. for transfer of<\/p>\n
Arbitration Application No.1 of 2008, titled M\/s<\/p>\n
Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Balaji Coke<\/p>\n
Industry Pvt. Ltd., pending in the Court of the
\n                                                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bhavnagar (Gujarat)<\/p>\n
to the Calcutta High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    Briefly      stated,         the        facts     are     that      the<\/p>\n
Petitioner Company registered under the Companies<\/p>\n
Act and having its registered office at 12, Ho-Chi<\/p>\n
Minh Sarani, Flat 2B, Second Floor, Kolkata, is<\/p>\n
carrying on business in the trade of coking coal.<\/p>\n
The Respondent, which is engaged in the business of<\/p>\n
processing       coking     coal     into       hard    coke,      requires<\/p>\n
coking    coal    as    raw    material         to     be   used    in   its<\/p>\n
processing unit for transformation into met coke<\/p>\n
(hard coke).           On 29th April, 2005, the Petitioner<\/p>\n
Company     entered         into     an        agreement        with     the<\/p>\n
Respondent Company to supply 15,000 Metric Tonnes<\/p>\n
of coking coal of Indonesian Origin.                        The agreement<\/p>\n
to sell provided that the cargo would be sold to<\/p>\n
the   Respondent       on     High       Seas    basis.         The      said<\/p>\n
agreement    was       executed          in     Kolkata       within      the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
\n                                                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.   Clause 11 of the aforesaid agreement contains<\/p>\n
an Arbitration Clause which reads as under :-<\/p>\n
     “In    case    of    any    dispute        or   difference
\n     arising between the parties hereto or any
\n     claim   or     thing      herein        contained     or     the
\n     construction thereof or as to any matter
\n     in any way connected with or arising out
\n     of these presents or the operation thereof
\n     or the rights, duties or liabilities of
\n     either party thereof, then and in every
\n     such    case     the       matter,        differences         in
\n     disputes       shall        be      referred          to      an
\n     arbitrator in Kolkata, West Bengal, India
\n     in    accordance         with     and    subject      to     the
\n     provisions          of      the         Arbitration          and
\n     Conciliation         Act,       1996,     or    any        other
\n     enactment       or        statutory         modifications
\n     thereof for the time being in force.                         The
\n     place of arbitration shall be Kolkata.”\n<\/p>\n
                                      [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement dated 29th<\/p>\n
April, 2005, the parties entered into a specific<\/p>\n
High Seas Sale Agreement on 7th May, 2005, wherein
\n                                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
it was specified that the contracted coal would be<\/p>\n
supplied to the Respondent from a vessel named MV<\/p>\n
Gulf Ranger.         The total sale consideration for the<\/p>\n
consignment         was     mentioned        as   Rs.8,11,80,000\/-.<\/p>\n
Clause    14   of     the   said     High    Seas    Sale      Agreement<\/p>\n
provided that the sale contract would be subject to<\/p>\n
Kolkata jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Disputes having arisen between the parties, the<\/p>\n
Respondent herein by its letter dated 20th December,<\/p>\n
2008, invoked the arbitration clause and requested<\/p>\n
the Petitioner Company to confirm the appointment<\/p>\n
of   a   retired      Judge     of     the   Gujarat       High   Court,<\/p>\n
Hon’ble    Mr.      Justice     K.M.    Mehta,      to   be    the   Sole<\/p>\n
Arbitrator.      In       the   said    letter,      the      Respondent<\/p>\n
alleged that the Petitioner was in possession of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,43,73,485\/- which belonged to the Respondent<\/p>\n
and was being enjoyed by the Petitioner instead of<\/p>\n
handing over the same to the Respondent.                          It was<\/p>\n
also alleged that the Respondent was entitled to
\n                                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
receive 6,793 Metric Tonnes of material from the<\/p>\n
Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid sum lying<\/p>\n
with    the   Petitioner.          It   was   alleged    that    the<\/p>\n
Petitioner      was   not    issuing      delivery      orders    in<\/p>\n
favour of the Respondent for release of the said<\/p>\n
material and that the same was currently lying in a<\/p>\n
plot owned by the Respondent, but under the control<\/p>\n
and supervision of the Petitioner in Gujarat within<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Civil Courts.<\/p>\n
5.     The petitioner wrote back to the Respondent on<\/p>\n
9th January, 2009, denying all the allegations and<\/p>\n
in particular denying the fact that it had received<\/p>\n
any sum of money from the Respondent or that the<\/p>\n
Respondent was entitled to receive any material, as<\/p>\n
alleged.      A preliminary objection was also raised<\/p>\n
by the Petitioner to the appointment of Mr. Justice<\/p>\n
K.M.    Mehta   as    the   Sole    Arbitrator     in    terms    of<\/p>\n
Clause 11 of the Agreement dated 29th April, 2005,<\/p>\n
particularly when the said clause stipulates that
\n                                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
the disputes shall be referred to an Arbitrator in<\/p>\n
Kolkata, West Bengal, India, and Mr. Justice K.M.<\/p>\n
Mehta was based in Ahmedabad.                      It was expressly<\/p>\n
stated by the Petitioner that the appointment of<\/p>\n
the   learned      Judge       as    Sole    Arbitrator      would        be<\/p>\n
wholly     contrary       to     the     express     terms     of        the<\/p>\n
arbitration clause.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    According to the Petitioner, it was surprised<\/p>\n
to receive summons issued by the Principal Senior<\/p>\n
Civil Judge, Bhavnagar (Gujarat) to appear before<\/p>\n
the said Court on 17th January, 2009, in Arbitration<\/p>\n
Application No.1 of 2008 purported to have been<\/p>\n
filed by the Respondent-Company under Section 9 of<\/p>\n
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying<\/p>\n
for an injunction to restrain the Petitioner, his<\/p>\n
servants     and     agents          from    disposing,      selling,<\/p>\n
diverting or alienating the material in question or<\/p>\n
any   part    thereof          and     for   the    issuance        of     a<\/p>\n
direction    to     the    Petitioner         to    issue    delivery
\n                                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
orders for 6,793 MT of coking coal in favour of the<\/p>\n
Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   Appearing in support of the Transfer Petition,<\/p>\n
Mr. Gaurav Mitra, learned Advocate, submitted that<\/p>\n
the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Principal<\/p>\n
Senior    Civil     Judge    at    Bhavnagar,     Gujarat,    was<\/p>\n
contrary to the express terms of the High Seas Sale<\/p>\n
Agreement dated 7th May, 2005, wherein it had been<\/p>\n
expressly stated that the sale contract would be<\/p>\n
subject     to    Kolkata         jurisdiction.     Mr.      Mitra<\/p>\n
submitted   that     the    Respondent    had     deliberately,<\/p>\n
with mala fide intention, failed to disclose the<\/p>\n
specific High Seas Sale Agreement dated 7th May,<\/p>\n
2005, in the application under Section 9 of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid    Act,    since    it    contained     the   specific<\/p>\n
jurisdiction clause by which all disputes arising<\/p>\n
out of or relating to the arbitration agreement<\/p>\n
were to be filed within the jurisdiction of the
\n                                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts at Kolkata. What was disclosed was merely<\/p>\n
the agreement to sell dated 29th April, 2005.<\/p>\n
8.     Mr. Mitra further submitted that when the venue<\/p>\n
for    arbitration       had    been      expressly     agreed    to<\/p>\n
between the parties to be Kolkata, West Bengal, and<\/p>\n
also having regard to the fact that the Arbitrator<\/p>\n
to    be    appointed    was    to   be    a   person    based   in<\/p>\n
Kolkata, it is only the Courts at Kolkata which had<\/p>\n
both       pecuniary    and    territorial     jurisdiction      to<\/p>\n
entertain all applications in connection with the<\/p>\n
High Seas Sale Agreement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     Mr. Mitra submitted that the learned Principal<\/p>\n
Senior Civil Judge at Bhavnagar (Gujarat), neither<\/p>\n
has the territorial nor pecuniary jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
entertain      or   determine     any     dispute     between    the<\/p>\n
parties arising out of the agreement referred to<\/p>\n
hereinabove      and    the    jurisdiction     of    the   Gujarat<\/p>\n
Court has been invoked with mala fide motive, in
\n                                                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
violation of the terms of the agreement agreed to<\/p>\n
between the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.<\/p>\n
Mitra referred to and relied upon the judgment of a<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Geo. Miller & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of<\/p>\n
India & others [69 (1997) Delhi Law Times 616],<\/p>\n
where      since     the     parties       had   agreed        to     the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction       of   a    particular      Court   to    entertain<\/p>\n
disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement<\/p>\n
between the parties, it was held that where two or<\/p>\n
more Courts have jurisdiction under the Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure to try a suit or proceeding, an<\/p>\n
agreement     between       the    parties    that   the       disputes<\/p>\n
between them shall be tried in one of such Courts<\/p>\n
is   not    contrary        to    public    policy   nor       does    it<\/p>\n
contravene     the      provisions     of    Section      28    of    the<\/p>\n
Indian Contract Act, 1872.                 It was also observed<\/p>\n
that the choice of Forum agreed to and accepted by
\n                                                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
the    parties    should       normally         be    respected.              Mr.<\/p>\n
Mitra    also     pointed          out    that       in    the     aforesaid<\/p>\n
decision, the learned Judge had relied upon two<\/p>\n
decisions of this Court in (i) A.B.C. Laminart (P)<\/p>\n
Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies<\/a> [1989 (2) SCC 173]; and (ii)<\/p>\n
Hakam Singh vs. Gammon (India) Ltd.<\/a> [AIR 1971 SC<\/p>\n
740 = (1971) 1 SCC 286], wherein it was held that<\/p>\n
where there might be two or more competent Courts<\/p>\n
which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part<\/p>\n
of the cause of action having arisen therein, if<\/p>\n
the     parties    to        the     contract         agreed          to    vest<\/p>\n
jurisdiction      in    one        of    such    Courts       to      try     any<\/p>\n
dispute which might arise between themselves, the<\/p>\n
agreement would be valid.                     It was also urged that<\/p>\n
if the purport of the agreement was to completely<\/p>\n
oust     the    jurisdiction             of     the       Court,       such    a<\/p>\n
condition would be unlawful and void being against<\/p>\n
public    policy       and    would,          therefore,         be    hit    by<\/p>\n
Section 28 of the Contract Act.                      However, if it was<\/p>\n
found that the jurisdiction agreed to would also be
\n                                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
an appropriate jurisdiction in the matter of the<\/p>\n
contract, it could not be said that it ousted the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. In addition to the above, Mr. Mitra submitted<\/p>\n
that even if the provisions of Section 20 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure were to be applied, no part<\/p>\n
of   the    cause      of   action   had   arisen     within   the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court in Gujarat so<\/p>\n
as to enable it to assume jurisdiction in respect<\/p>\n
of the transaction arrived at in Kolkata and the<\/p>\n
parties had agreed under clause 14 of the agreement<\/p>\n
that the sale contract would be subject to Kolkata<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.          Mr. Mitra urged that it was in such<\/p>\n
circumstances and also having regard to clause 11<\/p>\n
of the aforesaid agreement, which provided for the<\/p>\n
place      of   arbitration     to   be    Kolkata,     that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner       was     impelled    to    file   the    transfer<\/p>\n
petition for transfer of the pending case in the<\/p>\n
Bhavnagar Court to the Calcutta High Court.
\n                                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
12. Responding       to   Mr.    Mitra’s     submissions,      Mr.<\/p>\n
Jitendra Malkan, learned Advocate, urged that since<\/p>\n
the cause of action for the Section 9 application<\/p>\n
had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar<\/p>\n
Court   in    Gujarat,     having       regard   to   even    the<\/p>\n
decisions cited by Mr. Mitra, the Bhavnagar Court<\/p>\n
had jurisdiction to entertain the said application.<\/p>\n
Mr. Malkan submitted that after discharge of the<\/p>\n
goods at port Pipavav in Gujarat, the same were<\/p>\n
stored in the godown of the Petitioner-Company at<\/p>\n
its own premises within the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Bhavnagar Court and since the relief prayed for by<\/p>\n
the Respondent-Company was for release of 6,793 MT<\/p>\n
of   coking   coal    from      the   said   consignment,     the<\/p>\n
application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and<\/p>\n
Conciliation    Act,      1996    had    been    rightly     filed<\/p>\n
before the learned Single Judge at Bhavnagar.<\/p>\n
13. Mr. Malkan submitted that having regard to the<\/p>\n
provisions of Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of
\n                                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
Civil Procedure, the suit had been rightly filed<\/p>\n
before the Bhavnagar Court, inasmuch as, it related<\/p>\n
to the coal which was lying within the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
of the Bhavnagar Court.            Mr. Malkan submitted that<\/p>\n
even   taking    into   consideration        the   decisions    of<\/p>\n
this Court in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. (supra) and<\/p>\n
Hakam Singh (supra), it could not be contended that<\/p>\n
the    jurisdiction     of    the    Bhavnagar     Court     stood<\/p>\n
ousted by either Clause 11 or Clause 14 of the High<\/p>\n
Seas Sale Agreement, which had provided that the<\/p>\n
sale    contract      would     be     subject     to      Kolkata<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.        Mr. Malkan urged that there was,<\/p>\n
therefore,      no   ground   to     allow   the   Petitioner’s<\/p>\n
prayer for transfer of the Arbitration Application<\/p>\n
No.1 of 2008, pending in the Court of Principal<\/p>\n
Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhavnagar to the<\/p>\n
Calcutta High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. Mr. Malkan also submitted that neither Clause<\/p>\n
11 nor Clause 14 conferred exclusive jurisdiction
\n                                                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
on the Courts in Kolkata.                Since the agreement did<\/p>\n
not use expressions such as “alone”, “only” and<\/p>\n
“exclusive”,       which    could        be    construed      to    have<\/p>\n
completely ousted the jurisdiction of the Courts in<\/p>\n
Gujarat,     it    could        not   be      contended      that    the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Court in Bhavnagar stood ousted<\/p>\n
from     entertaining       the       respondent’s        application<\/p>\n
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation<\/p>\n
Act, 1996.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. The     only     question          which      falls      for     our<\/p>\n
consideration       is     whether,           notwithstanding        the<\/p>\n
mutual     agreement       to     make     the    High      Seas    Sale<\/p>\n
Agreement subject to Kolkata jurisdiction, it would<\/p>\n
be open to the Respondent-Company to contend that<\/p>\n
since a part of the cause of action purportedly<\/p>\n
arose    within    the     jurisdiction          of   the    Bhavnagar<\/p>\n
Court, the application filed under Section 9 of the<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the<\/p>\n
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhavnagar
\n                                                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
(Gujarat),      would        still   be    maintainable.              The<\/p>\n
aforesaid question has often troubled the courts<\/p>\n
with one view being that since the parties to the<\/p>\n
agreement had agreed to a particular forum, they<\/p>\n
could no longer resile from the said position and<\/p>\n
claim that other courts, where a part of the cause<\/p>\n
of    action        may    have    arisen,     would      also      have<\/p>\n
jurisdiction          to     entertain     a      suit    or        other<\/p>\n
proceeding.         The other view has been that if by the<\/p>\n
said agreement the rightful jurisdiction of a court<\/p>\n
was sought to be ousted and a court was vested with<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction to entertain a suit, which it did<\/p>\n
not    have,    the        same   would   be      contrary     to     the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Contract<\/p>\n
Act, 1872, being contrary to public policy.<\/p>\n
16. One of the earlier judgments on this dichotomy<\/p>\n
of    views    is    that    of   this    Court    in    Hakam      Singh<\/p>\n
(supra).       Faced with the question as to whether an<\/p>\n
agreement arrived at between two parties that one
\n                                                                       16<\/span><\/p>\n
of two courts having jurisdiction, would decide all<\/p>\n
disputes relating to such agreement, was hit by the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Contract<\/p>\n
Act, 1872, this Court held that where two courts or<\/p>\n
more have jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding<\/p>\n
under       the     provisions    of     the     Code     of       Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, an agreement between the parties that<\/p>\n
one    of    such    courts   would      have    jurisdiction         to<\/p>\n
decide      the   disputes    arising     between       the       parties<\/p>\n
from such agreement would not be contrary to public<\/p>\n
policy and would not, therefore, be contrary to the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Contract<\/p>\n
Act, 1872.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. The said question once again arose in the case<\/p>\n
of     A.B.C.     Laminart    (P)      Ltd.     (supra),          wherein<\/p>\n
following the decision in Hakam Singh (supra), but<\/p>\n
relying on the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio,<\/p>\n
this     Court      held   that     by    an    agreement          which<\/p>\n
absolutely        ousted   the    jurisdiction       of       a    court
\n                                                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
having jurisdiction to decide the matter, would be<\/p>\n
unlawful and void, being contrary to public policy<\/p>\n
under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act.                         But<\/p>\n
so long as the parties to a contract do not oust<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of all the courts, which would<\/p>\n
otherwise have jurisdiction to decide the cause of<\/p>\n
action under the law, it could not be said that the<\/p>\n
parties     had    by      their        contract     ousted          the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the court.              This Court went on to<\/p>\n
observe     that   where     there      may    be   two    or        more<\/p>\n
competent     courts       which     can      entertain        a     suit<\/p>\n
consequent    upon     a   part    of    the    cause     of       action<\/p>\n
having arisen therewithin, if the parties to the<\/p>\n
contract agree to vest jurisdiction in one such<\/p>\n
court to try the dispute which might arise between<\/p>\n
them, the agreement would be valid.                 The question<\/p>\n
also arose in R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs.<\/p>\n
Shree Vallabh Glass Words Ltd.,<\/a> [(1993) 2 SCC 130],<\/p>\n
where an endorsement “Subject to Anand (Gujarat)<\/p>\n
jurisdiction”, was relied upon to contend that only
\n                                                                       18<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts      in     Anand     would      have       jurisdiction        to<\/p>\n
entertain any dispute relating to such jurisdiction<\/p>\n
and the suit filed in Bombay on the ground that the<\/p>\n
cause       of     action     arose        in     Bombay       was    not<\/p>\n
maintainable.         In the said case, this Court held<\/p>\n
that     since     apart     from     the       endorsement     on    the<\/p>\n
deposit      receipt,       there    was     no    formal     agreement<\/p>\n
between the parties, the said endorsement would not<\/p>\n
divest the courts in Bombay of their jurisdiction<\/p>\n
to entertain the suit.              As will be evident from the<\/p>\n
facts of the suit, the same stood on a different<\/p>\n
footing      and    does    not     advance       the   case    of    the<\/p>\n
respondent in any way.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. In the instant case, the parties had knowingly<\/p>\n
and voluntarily agreed that the contract arising<\/p>\n
out    of    the    High    Seas     Sale       Agreement     would    be<\/p>\n
subject to Kolkata jurisdiction and even if the<\/p>\n
courts      in     Gujarat     also         had    jurisdiction        to<\/p>\n
entertain any action arising out of the agreement,
\n                                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
it has to be held that the agreement to have the<\/p>\n
disputes decided in Kolkata by an Arbitrator in<\/p>\n
Kolkata, West Bengal, was valid and the Respondent-<\/p>\n
Company had wrongly chosen to file its application<\/p>\n
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation<\/p>\n
Act   before    the    Bhavnagar     Court    (Gujarat)       in<\/p>\n
violation of such agreement.        The decisions of this<\/p>\n
Court in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. (supra) as also<\/p>\n
Hakam Singh (supra) are very clear on the point.<\/p>\n
19. Having regard to the above, we are inclined to<\/p>\n
accept   the   submissions   made     on     behalf   of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner and we are of the view that the transfer<\/p>\n
petition should be allowed.         We, accordingly, do so<\/p>\n
and   direct   that   Arbitration    Application      No.1    of<\/p>\n
2008 titled M\/s Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
vs. Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd., pending in the<\/p>\n
Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),<\/p>\n
Bhavnagar (Gujarat), be transferred to the Calcutta<\/p>\n
High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
20. There will, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                  …………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                ……………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                            (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated : 09.09.2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.78 OF 2009 Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Vs. M\/s Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) Pvt. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBalaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-23T15:25:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\\\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-23T15:25:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2813,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\\\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-23T15:25:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\\\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-23T15:25:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-23T15:25:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009"},"wordCount":2813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009","name":"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-23T15:25:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-coke-industry-pvt-ltd-vs-ms-maa-bhagwati-coke-guj-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balaji Coke Industry Pvt.Ltd vs M\/S.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) … on 9 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}