Case Comment On M/S. Acme Papers Ltd. Vs. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd.
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 6
- 2 min read
Shivani Bhattiprolu, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court's decision in Acme Papers Ltd. v. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. provides compelling insight into the procedural complexities that arise when multiple suits between the same parties, concerning the same subject matter, are filed in different jurisdictions. The lawsuit revolved on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in 2022 between Acme Papers Ltd. and Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of roughly 74.06 acres of land in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. According to the MoU, the seller (Acme) was responsible for getting all required government clearances to complete the deal. When permissions could not be obtained, the buyer (Chintaman) filed a petition for specific performance in the District Court of Sehore. Acme responded by filing a declaratory litigation in the City Civil Court of Calcutta, claiming that the MoU had been terminated and was no longer enforceable.
This triggered competing transfer petitions before the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. While Acme sought to transfer the Sehore suit to Calcutta, Chintaman requested the opposite. The case asked the Court to evaluate the respective scope and priority of Sections 10, 16, and 20 of the CPC, as well as establish which venue was suitable for resolving the disagreement.
The Court resolved the problem by addressing fundamental concerns of jurisdiction, suit scheduling, judicial economy, and party convenience. Finally, the judgement emphasised the relevance of the immovable property's situs in establishing jurisdiction and provided explicit direction on avoiding multiple lawsuits.
This case comment explores the merits and pitfalls of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and dissects 2 other Supreme Court judgments that were passed after the cases that were cited.
