J&K High Court Quashes Injunction Over Airport Tenders | ‘Budgam Court Had No Jurisdiction’ Due To Delhi-Only Clause | Warns Against Orders Passed In Defiance Of Contractual Terms
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside an interim injunction order issued by the trial court, holding that the said order was without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to pass a fresh order on the plaintiff’s application for interim relief only after deciding its application seeking amendment of the plaint.
The appeal was filed against the orders dated 05.12.2024 and 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Budgam, in a civil suit initiated by the respondent. The exparte interim injunction order dated 05.12.2024 had kept in abeyance a communication dated 13.11.2024 issued by the defendants, which disqualified the plaintiff from empanelment and participation in tenders concerning vehicle parking management services at AAI Airports.
Subsequently, the defendants appeared on 12.12.2024 and filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC seeking vacation of the ad-interim injunction. They also raised a jurisdictional objection under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, invoking clause 4.15.1 of the Request for Empanelment (RFE), which confers exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Delhi.
The plaintiff responded with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by challenging clause 4.15.1. The trial court, on 05.03.2025, decided to hear the amendment application first and extended the interim relief granted earlier.
The appellants challenged both orders, contending that the exparte interim injunction was passed without jurisdiction and by suppressing the existence of clause 4.15.1 of the RFE. They argued that the trial court erred in not vacating the interim relief despite the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC.
In reply, the respondent questioned the maintainability of the appeal, urging the High Court to direct the trial court to decide the injunction application expeditiously rather than entertaining the appeal.
"As per the provisions contained in Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, an order passed under Rule 1 and 2 of Order 39 is appealable in nature."
"Generally the courts are loath to entertain an appeal against an exparte ad-interim order... But there is no absolute bar... In deserving and appropriate cases, it is open to the appellate court to entertain and decide an appeal..."
The Court noted that in cases where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3-A is not followed, the appellate court is duty-bound to entertain the appeal. It relied on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695:
"In a case where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3-A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application..."
The High Court examined the timeline of events. The interim order was passed on 05.12.2024, and the defendants appeared and sought vacation of the order on 12.12.2024. Despite several adjournments, the application was not decided within the stipulated 30 days.
"Thus, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court... this Court is obligated to entertain the present appeal."
The Court further observed: "There is yet another reason for entertaining the present appeal... the appellants have raised a jurisdictional issue..."
Clause 4.15.1 of the RFE stated: "The empanelment Process shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India and only the Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction over all disputes..."
Citing A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies and Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the Court held: "Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have jurisdiction... an inference may be drawn that parties intended to exclude all other courts."
In Rakesh Kumar Verma vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 752, the Supreme Court affirmed: "Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses... The clause does not take away the right... but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone."
The Court held: "Once in terms of clause 4.15.1... jurisdiction of the courts other than the courts located at Delhi has been excluded, the jurisdiction of the courts at Budgam is taken away. The same... is permissible in law."
"Therefore, even as on date the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is without jurisdiction."
"In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 is set aside..."
"...leaving it open to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff after deciding its application for amendment of the plaint."
"A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court for information and compliance."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Malik, Ms. Areeba Ahad & Mr. Hamzah Draboo, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Bhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Danish Majid Dar, Ms. Ahra Syed & Ms. Monisa Manzoor, Advocate
Case Title: Airport Authority of India and Others vs. M/S Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO No.12/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
