Question

Principle: No court can execute the decisions unless it is having territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom decision is to be executed. The Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
Facts: A decision is given by court at New Delhi on a contractual matter against X in a suit between X and Y. X is resident of Maharashtra and he has properties in Maharashtra and Gujarat.

• A. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to Court at Maharashtra only
• B. New Delhi court can execute the decision because it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter so it can execute also
• C. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to court at Gujarat only
• D. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharashtra or Gujarat

Hint:

A court may transfer a case to another court with jurisdiction over the defendant’s residence or property.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

According to the principle, a court can transfer the proceedings to another court if it has territorial jurisdiction over the person or property. In this case, the court at New Delhi has the jurisdiction to decide the matter, but since the defendant, X, resides in Maharashtra and has properties in Gujarat, the court at New Delhi can transfer the case to any of the courts that have jurisdiction over the defendant's property or residence. Hence, the proceedings can be transferred to either the Maharashtra or Gujarat courts.
Thus, the correct answer is (D).
Option (A) is incorrect because it restricts the transfer to Maharashtra only, which is not mandated by the principle. Option (B) is incorrect as New Delhi court cannot execute the decision unless it has the jurisdiction to enforce it, which is not clear here. Option (C) is incorrect because the case can be transferred to both Maharashtra and Gujarat, not just Gujarat.

Answer 2

The issue here is which court or courts the Delhi court can send the case to for execution, given where X lives and where X's property is. Let's look at the options.

1. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to the court at Maharashtra only: Maharashtra is indeed a valid transferee court, since X resides there and also owns property there. But limiting the transfer to Maharashtra alone overlooks that X also owns property in Gujarat, which independently qualifies as a place with territorial jurisdiction over that property.
2. New Delhi court can execute the decision itself, because it had jurisdiction to decide the matter: The principle draws a clear line between the court that decides a case and the court that can execute it. Having the power to decide the matter does not carry over into the power to execute against a person or property outside its own territorial jurisdiction, so the Delhi court needs to transfer, not execute itself.
3. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to the court at Gujarat only: Gujarat is a valid transferee court because X owns property there. But this option wrongly excludes Maharashtra, where X both resides and holds property, which is just as valid a destination for the transfer.
4. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either Maharashtra or Gujarat: X resides in Maharashtra and holds property in both Maharashtra and Gujarat. Since the transfer can go to any court with territorial jurisdiction over the person or the property, both Maharashtra and Gujarat qualify, giving the Delhi court the choice between the two.

Because X's residence and property span two different states, and the principle allows transfer to any court with jurisdiction over the person or the property, the Delhi court is not confined to a single destination.

So the correct answer is New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either Maharashtra or Gujarat.

Answer 3

This question separates two distinct powers, the power to decide and the power to execute, and then counts which courts qualify for the second one. Each wrong option confuses or undercounts these.

1. Transfer to Maharashtra only: This option correctly identifies Maharashtra as a valid destination, since X resides and holds property there, but wrongly excludes Gujarat, where X separately owns property.
2. New Delhi court can execute the decision itself: This option collapses the distinction the principle draws between deciding a matter and executing it. Having had jurisdiction to decide the dispute does not carry over into territorial jurisdiction over X's person or property, which sits in Maharashtra and Gujarat, not Delhi.
3. Transfer to Gujarat only: This option makes the mirror error to the first, correctly spotting Gujarat as valid through X's property there, but wrongly leaving out Maharashtra, where X both resides and holds property.
4. Transfer to either Maharashtra or Gujarat: This option gets the count right, recognising that territorial jurisdiction over X's person or property exists in two different states, so the transferring court may choose between them.

Because X's residence and property are spread across two states, and the principle allows transfer to any court holding jurisdiction over the person or the property, restricting the choice to one state, or letting Delhi execute directly, both understate what the principle permits.

Therefore, the correct answer is New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either Maharashtra or Gujarat.