M/S R B Enterprises vs Jai Deep Goel

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

These petitions, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seek transfer of Suits being CS No.518/2016 (renumbered as CS

No.13173/2016) titled Shri Avneet Goyal vs. Shri Jai Deep Goyal and Suit being CS No.519/2016 (renumbered as CS No.13174/2016) titled Shri Jai

Deep Goel vs. M/s R.B. Enterprises both of the Court of Ms. Vandana Chauhan, Additional District Judge-15, (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi to this Court.

Notice of the petition was ordered to be issued and the counsel for the respondent appears.

The senior counsel for the petitioners has argued:

(i) that the first of the aforesaid Suit was instituted by the petitioner Avneet Goyal against Jai Deep Goyal for recovery of Rs.99,13,337/-;

(ii) that the second of the Suits aforesaid was instituted by the respondent Jai Deep Goyal against the petitioner R.B. Enterprises for recovery of

Rs.54,98,150/-;

(iii) that both the Suits aforesaid were filed / instituted in this Court;

(iv) that on enhancement of the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court on enactment of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, both the

Suits aforesaid were transferred to the subordinate courts;

(v) that both the Suits are commercial suits within the meaning of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Division

of High Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Actâ€​ for short);

(vi) that as per the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, said Suits ought not to have been transferred to the subordinate courts and

have been wrongly transferred.

Reliance is placed on the order dated 2nd November, 2016 in TR.P.(C) No.117/2016 titled Bimla Agarwal vs. Gupta International & Others of this

Court.

The counsel for the respondent opposes the transfer.

I have considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

Vide Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, the minimum pecuniary ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court was enhanced from that in

excess of Rs.20 Lakhs to that in excess of Rs.2 Crores. However, simultaneously therewith, the Commercial Courts Act aforesaid was also enacted

which created Commercial Divisions in the High Courts having original civil jurisdiction and vide Section 7 thereof provided that all suits and

applications relating to commercial disputes of a specified value filed in a High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction shall be heard and

disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court.

Section 2(i) of the Commercial Courts Act defines “specified value†in relation to commercial dispute as the value of the subject matter in

respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 and which shall not be less than Rs.1 Crore or such higher value as may be notified by

the Central Government.

Both the aforesaid Suits are for recovery of less than Rs.1 Crore and thus not of the specified value.

The same would thus not qualify them as falling within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division of this Court.

The contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners however is that since the said Suits were instituted prior to coming into force of the

Commercial Courts Act, notwithstanding being of less than the specified value defined in the Commercial Courts Act, are to be tried by this Court only

in terms of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The said proviso reads as under:

“Provided that all suits and applications relating to commercial disputes, stipulated by an Act to lie in a court not inferior to a District Court, and

filed or pending on the original side of the High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court.â€​

On it being enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner, as to how the Suits aforesaid qualify the requirement of “stipulated by an Act to

lie in a court not inferior to a District Courtâ€, the senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Section 25 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918

extended to Delhi and which provides as under:

“25. Original jurisdiction of District Judge in suits â€" Except as otherwise provided by any enactment for the time being in force, the court

of the District Judge shall have jurisdiction [in every original civil suit the value of which does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.]â€​

The said provision as applicable to Delhi also, has been amended simultaneously with the High Court Amendment Act to substitute the words

“rupees twenty lacsâ€​ with the words “rupees two croresâ€​.

I have enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner, who has instituted the Suit for recovery of money, is not

interested in expeditious recovery of its money. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that owing to the respective roster of the ordinary original civil

jurisdiction of this Court and of the courts of the District Judges/Additional District Judges, disposal of suits before the District Judges or Additional

District Judges is much quicker than the disposal of suits before this Court. The only reason which can be fathomed for the petitioners herein to seek

transfer of the Suits which are pending before the Additional District Judge, can be to avoid liability under a decree likely to be passed in the Suit filed

by the respondent and to avoid dismissal of own Suit which appears to have been filed only for the purpose of contesting the clam in the Suit filed by

the respondent.

With the aforesaid intent, the petitioner is found to be erroneously applying the principle of interpretation of statutes, ignoring the difference

between the words “stipulated by an Act to lie in a Court not inferior to a District Court†and the words prescribing the pecuniary jurisdiction of

the Court of the District Judge. Merely because the Punjab Courts Act, while prescribing the hierarchy / classes of courts and while stipulating the

pecuniary jurisdiction of each of such class of courts, has stipulated the maximum pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge as that above

that of the Court of small causes and not in excess of Rs.3 Lakhs and of the court of the District Judge as not in excess of Rs.2 Crores does not mean

that the Punjab Courts Act stipulates that a suit for recovery of money cannot lie in a court inferior to a District Court.

What the language of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act conveys is that there should be a statutory bar, as is to be found

in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to institution of a Suit for reliefs claimed thereunder in a court

inferior to the court of the District Judge. There is no such bar in Section 25 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

The Full Bench decision of this Court in Subhashini Malik Vs. S.K. Gandhi (2016) 233 DLT 83 held that pecuniary limits of jurisdiction prescribed

for administration of justice and Section 15 of the CPC do not divest the Courts of a higher pecuniary jurisdiction from entertaining the suits below

their minimum pecuniary value. On the same parity of reasoning, in Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. Manju Awasthy (1997) 68 DLT 112, it has been

held that there is no bar in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer of a suit from a court to a court higher than the court of

minimum pecuniary jurisdiction as per the valuation of that suit.

Section 25 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is not found to stipulate, within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts

Act, that a suit for recovery of money will not lie in a court inferior to a District Court. Admittedly the Suits are now pending in the court of the

Additional District Judge.

As far as the reliance by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the judgment aforesaid of this Court is concerned, the same does not

consider the aforesaid aspects and the judgment is per incuriam qua the same. The said judgment in turn refers to paras 17&18 of Kamal Sharma vs.

Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. 2016 229 DLT 438 and to para no.8 of Guiness World Records Ltd. Vs. Sababbi Mangal 230 (2016)

DLT 377.

This Court in Kamal Sharma supra was concerned with the question whether this Court, notwithstanding the enhancement in the minimum

pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and notwithstanding the Notification for transfer of pending suits below the enhanced minimum pecuniary

jurisdiction of this Court to the subordinate Courts, could consider an application for amendment of the plaint to enhance the valuation of the relief

claimed in the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. It was held that this Court was not functus officio and did not lack jurisdiction to deal

with such an application. This Court in Kamal Sharma was not concerned with the issue as had arisen in Bimla Agarwal supra or has been raised by

the senior counsel for the petitioners herein. The observations in para nos.17&18 of Kamal Sharma thus cannot be held to be laying down anything

contrary to what I have held above.

Similarly, Guiness World Records Ltd. supra was not concerned with the issue as has been raised by the senior counsel for the petitioners and

observations in para no.8 thereof quoted in Bimla Agarwal supra cannot be read out of context. The question for consideration in Guiness World

Records Ltd. was whether “IPR matters covered under the different provisions of the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act, Designs Act, Patents Act

and Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999†pending in this Court on the date of coming into force of the

Commercial Courts Act and even if the pecuniary jurisdiction of these matters was below Rs.1 crore were liable to be transferred to the subordinate

Courts. It was held that the said matters were covered by the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act and thus not liable to be

transferred.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there was no need for issuance of the Notification dated 28th April, 2016 if that

were so. The said Notification is as under:

“Honâ€ble the Chief Justice vide Notification dated 28th April, 2016 has been pleased to order issuance of the following addendum to Notification

No.27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015:-

“All suits and applications covered by the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate

Division of High Courts Act, 2015 filed or pending as on 26.10.2015 on the Original Side of the Delhi High Court, shall remain in the Delhi High Court

and shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court.â€​

In terms of the said addendum, all suits and applications relating to commercial disputes stipulated by an Act to lie in a Court not inferior to a District

Court, which have been transferred to the District Courts pursuant to the Notification No.27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015 shall be recalled back

to the Delhi High Court for being heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of Delhi High Court. Partied to such suits or applications may

also approach the concerned District Courts for sending such suits or applications to Delhi High Court for disposal by the Commercial Division of

Delhi High Court. All such suits and applications that shall be recalled, on receipt from the District Courts, in the first instance shall be listed before the

Joint Registrars for fixation of dates for listing before the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court.â€​

The said notification was issued because it was found that Suits which were stipulated by an Act to be not triable by a court below the District

Court were also being transferred. I have already hereinabove explained that the Suits subject matter of these petitions do not fall in that category.

There is no merit in the petitions. In fact the petitions are found to be in abuse of the process of the Court and intended to interfere in decision of

the Suits of which transfer is sought.

Dismissed.