- 1 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH R DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION No.102751 OF2024(GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. SERENTICA RENEWABLES INDIA3PRIVATE LIMITED, DLF CYBER PARK, BLCOK-B, 9TH FLOOR, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE III, SECTOR20 GURUGRAM-122008, HARYANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. BALAJI RANGARAM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADV. & SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV.) AND: SRI. BASAPPA S/O. YAMANURAPPA, AGED76YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI, RONA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT-582209. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.77/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RON AS VOID AB INITIO, ILLEGAL, NON-EST IN LAW AND LACKS JURISDICTION; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NAME OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
- 2 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 DATED1403.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC IN O.S.NO.77/2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER
Captioned petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, M/s. Serentica Renewables India Private Limited. The petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the suit registered as O.S.No.77/2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron. The petitioner claims that the suit, which pertains to a dispute over an infrastructure project is not maintainable before civil Court and lacks jurisdiction, and thus has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and the interim order dated 14.03.2024.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent/plaintiff, Sri. Basappa, an agriculturist from Hosahalli, Rona Taluk, Gadag District, has filed a suit seeking an injunction against the petitioner - 3 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 to halt the development of a wind power project. Despite strong opposition from the petitioner, the trial court granted an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The petitioner contended that the trial Court's decision is erroneous and in violation of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The crux of the petitioner’s argument is based on the jurisdictional competence of the trial Court to entertain the suit. The petitioner submitted that the subject matter of the dispute involved an infrastructure project, which, according to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the subsequent amendment in 2018, should be adjudicated only by a Designated Special Court. Specifically, Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act imposes a restriction on civil Courts from granting injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects. The petitioner's argument rests heavily on the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018.-. 4 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 Section 20A of the Act expressly prohibits civil Courts from granting injunctions in matters related to contracts concerning infrastructure projects. Additionally, a circular dated 04.11.2020, issued by the High Court of Karnataka, emphasizes that disputes involving such projects must be resolved by Designated Special Courts, which have exclusive jurisdiction over these matters. Pleadings at para 6 and 10 are relevant and are extracted as under: “6. ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
28. 03.2024 gÀAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß d«ÄäUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d«Ää£À°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d«Ää£À°è AP-10 «zÀÄåvï UÉÆÃ¥ÀÅgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÉý £ÀªÀÄä d«Ää£À°è AP-10 «zÀÄåvï UÉÆÃ¥ÀÅgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸ÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÉ®¸À £ÀªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀÄ C¥ÀàuÉ ¨ÉÃPÁUÄÀªÅÀ¢®è CAvÁ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
10. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä zÀÄmÁ¬ÄvÀ£À¢AzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d«Ää£À°è AP- 10 «zÀÄåvï UÉÆÃ¥ÀÅgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d«Ää£À°è ¸À«ð¸ï ¯ÉÊ£ï ºÁzÀĺÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ:
09. 03.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ±À¤ªÁgÀ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ UÄÀAqÁUÀ¼ÄÀ vÀªÀÄä zÀÄmÁ¬ÄvÀ£À¢AzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÀ¨Áâ ªÀ»ªÁnAiÀÄ d«Ää£À°è ¸À«ð¸ï ¯ÊÉ£À ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 04 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À°è AP-10 «zÀÄåvï UÉÆÃ¥ÀÅgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ ¤°è¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ CA¢¤AzÀ ªÁ¢UÉ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÆqÀĪÀ ¨sÁUÀ ©¢ÝzÉ.” Furthermore, the petitioner relied on a circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka on 04.11.2020, which emphasized that disputes involving infrastructure projects must be heard exclusively by Designated Special Courts.-. 5 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 This circular was issued in the context of ensuring that such projects are not delayed by legal challenges in inappropriate forums, thereby aligning with global best practices in the enforceability of contracts circular is extracted which reads as under: “GOB.II. 146/2020 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, DATED:
04. 11.2020 CIRCULAR Sub: Disposal of cases filed under Section 20(B) of "The Specific Relief Act, 1963 and (Amendment) Act, 2018". The Government of Karnataka vide Notification No.LAW84LCE2018dated 25.10.2019 and Corrigendum dated 03.12.2019 has designated the courts mentioned therein as Special Courts to try the suits filed under Section-20(B) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India in the letter dated 21.10.2020 has stated that the foreign investors have been pointing out that having Dedicated Special Courts for Infrastructure Projects is a global good practice and has been immensely beneficial in the enforceability of contracts both from the perspective of time and costs thereby stimulating investors' confidence and the designated Special Courts under the said Act not being exclusive and dedicated in nature, they do not meet up to the global best practices. The High Court upon considering said letter and pendency has decided to dedicate one specific day in a week for trial of the suits filed under said Act, by the designated Special Courts, for early disposal. Hence, the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City and all the Prl. District & Sessions Judges in the State are hereby directed that one specific day in a week i.e., Monday shall be - 6 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 dedicated for the trial of suits pending before the existing designated Special Courts under Section 20(B) of "The Specific Relief Act, 1963 and (Amendment) Act, 2018" on priority basis. BY ORDER
OF THE HIGH COURT, (RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR) REGISTRAR GENERAL
4. The counsel for petitioner argued that the trial Court's grant of an interim injunction was in direct violation of these provisions. The petitioner also referenced several landmark judgments, including Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai1, to assert that the High Court, under its writ jurisdiction, has the authority to intervene in cases where the lower Court has acted without jurisdiction.
5. There is no contest to the petition at hand. This Court has issued an interim order staying further proceedings in the suit while the petition is under consideration. This interim order implies that the respondent/plaintiff is aware of both the filing of this petition and the existence of the interim stay. 1 (2003) 6 SCC675- 7 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 Consequently, the ongoing proceedings in the suit initiated by the respondent/plaintiff are effectively suspended pending the resolution of this petition.
6. This Court carefully examined the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the relevant statutory provisions. The dispute indeed pertains to an infrastructure project involving the installation of a 302.4 MW wind power project, for which the petitioner had obtained necessary approvals from both the Government of Karnataka and the Ministry of Power, Government of India. This court noted that the respondent has received compensation for the land involved, further reinforcing the nature of the project as an infrastructure development.
7. Upon reviewing the records, it is evident that the petitioner, M/s. Serentica Renewables India Private Limited, has secured the necessary permissions from the Energy Department of the Government of Karnataka to install a 302.4 MW Wind Power Project across Gadag and Koppal Districts. Furthermore, the project has received - 8 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 approval from the Ministry of Power, Government of India, under Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for the installation of a dedicated overhead transmission line to support its wind and solar projects. The petitioner has claimed that there is an existing agreement and that the respondent/plaintiff has already received a compensation amount of Rs. 4,40,000/-. The records clearly indicate that the subject matter of the suit pertains to infrastructure projects, which are covered under the provisions outlined in Section 20A and Section 41(H)(A) of the Specific Relief Act. Given the admissions made in the plaint, the petitioner contends that the project in question falls under the category of Energy, and according to the circular issued on 04.11.2020, disputes of this nature must be adjudicated by the designated civil Court. This circular, which is annexed to the writ petition, explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of regular civil Courts in matters concerning infrastructure projects, in light of the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act and the subsequent circular issued by this Court.-. 9 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 8. The current suit for a simple injunction clearly falls within the purview of these provisions, particularly the amended Section 41(ha), which imposes a bar on civil Courts from entertaining suits related to disputes over infrastructure projects. The principles established by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai are directly applicable to this case. The 2018 amendment, along with the circular, mandates that such disputes be presented before the designated Court, which in this case is the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Gadag. The rationale behind directing such disputes to a designated court is to ensure that contractual disputes related to the implementation of infrastructure projects are resolved expeditiously. Considering these critical details, this Court is convinced that the respondent/plaintiff should not have instituted the suit before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron. This Court is of the view that the trial Court in Ron lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and its actions, including - 10 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 the grant of the interim injunction, were contrary to the statutory framework established by the Specific Relief Act.
9. In view of the critical need to uphold the statutory provisions governing disputes related to infrastructure projects, this Court finds it necessary to issue specific directives concerning the handling of such cases. The Specific Relief Act, particularly in light of the 2018 amendment, imposes clear jurisdictional restrictions regarding infrastructure-related disputes. Specifically, Section 20A and Section 41(ha) of the Act delineate that such disputes are to be adjudicated exclusively by designated Special Courts rather than regular civil Courts. Given these statutory mandates, it is essential to ensure strict compliance. Accordingly, this Court directs that no regular civil Court shall entertain suits pertaining to infrastructure projects once it is brought to the Court’s attention that the dispute falls within the categories defined under the aforementioned sections of the Specific Relief Act. The designation of Special Courts for such - 11 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 matters is not merely procedural but serves a substantive purpose in ensuring that these disputes are resolved with the requisite priority and expertise.
10. To facilitate adherence to these directives, it is imperative that, upon realization or notification of a matter involving an infrastructure project, the presiding civil Court must immediately transfer the case to the designated Special Court. This transfer should be carried out expeditiously to prevent any delays that could adversely affect the resolution of the dispute. The designated Special Court, as specified in the statutory framework and corresponding circulars, will have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such matters, thereby aligning with the legal provisions and ensuring proper procedural handling.
11. The objective of these directives is to reinforce the legislative intent behind the 2018 amendments and associated regulations, which aim to streamline the adjudication of infrastructure disputes and enhance the - 12 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 efficiency of the judicial process in these complex cases. The Court underscores that any deviation from these directives, including the inadvertent continuation of such cases in regular civil Courts, will result in the proceedings being considered null and void. Therefore, Courts are urged to exercise vigilance in identifying infrastructure- related matters and to ensure that such cases are promptly and appropriately transferred to the designated Special Courts. This approach will not only uphold the statutory requirements but also contribute to the effective and timely resolution of disputes in the infrastructure sector.
12. In light of the above, the petitioner's arguments are well-founded. The trial Court’s actions in entertaining the suit and granting an injunction are contrary to the legal provisions governing infrastructure projects. Consequently, this Court concludes that the suit is not maintainable and the interim injunction granted by the - 13 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:9912 WP No.102751 of 2024 trial Court is one without jurisdiction and therefore, not sustainable.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in O.S.No.77/2024 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, are held as not maintainable; (iii) However, the respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to seek transfer to the designate Court in accordance with the law. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.:
1. Sl No.:
3.