The High Court · 2025

Order

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of an order dated 12.O2.2025 passed in I.A.No.266 of 2023 in C.O.S.No. 15 ol 2023 by the Commerciai Court, Ranga

Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (Trial Court'). By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's appiication for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 ofThe Code olCivil Procedure, 1908, in the Suit filed by the respondent/ plaintifl

2. The petitioner is the defendant in a Suit (C.O.S.No.15 of 2023) filed by the respondent for recovery of a tota-l amount of Rs. 1,03,58,96 1/- consisting of the principal amount of Rs..14,53,396/- along with interest at 18% per annum, along with damages. The petitioner filed I \ 4 I.A.No.266 of 2023 in the said Suit for rejection of the piaint on the ground that the Suit was barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, more speci{ically under the provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ('the 20 15 ActJ

3. l,carned counsel appearing petitioner/ defendant argucs that a Suit must satisly the requirement of 'Specified Value' as defined under section 2(1)(i) of the 20 15 Act for being classified as a Commercial Suit. According to counsel, the specified value falls below Rs. I crore u,hich u,ould be evident from the prayers being divided into three separatc segments consisting of the principal amount of Rs.44,53,396 l-, interest amount of Rs.58,58,96 1/- and total amounting to Rs.1,03,58,96 1/-.

4. Counsel urges that this form of segregation is not permissible for computing the specified value of the Suit for the purpose of crossing the Rs.1 crore threshold. Counsel argues that the subsequent reduction of the 'specified value'by \/ay of an Amendment to Rs.3 lakh may not be / ) applicable to the State of Telangana in the absence of a State Notification. J Learned counsel appearing for respor-rdent/ plaintiff relies on the prayers in the Suit to argue that the cumulative amount of the reliefs would cross Rs. 1 Crore within the requirement of section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act

6. The issue which is first required to be clarified is the specihed value for a Commercial dispute in order to qualify as a Commercial Suit under section 2(1)(i) read with section 12 ofthe 2015 Act. 7 . Section 2 ( 1 )(i) ol the 20 1 5 Act defines 'Specified Value' as the value of the subject matter in respect of a Suit. The value of the subject matter is to be determined in accordance with section 12 of the 20 15 Act. Section 2(1)(i) of the 2O 15 Act is set out below: "'Specified Value", in relation to a comrnercial dispute, shall mean tl.e value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance u,ith section 12 [which sha-il not be less than three lakh rupees] or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.' ) I I l I f I I i 1 i I I I $ t I I : i I : : I I 6

8. Section 1 2 ( 1 ) provides the pointers for determining the specified value of the subject matter of a commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application and includes recovery of money, movable and immovable property and any other intalgible rights. Section 12 does not quantify any specified value in terms of a number in reiation to the subject matter of a commercia-l dispute in a suit. Section 12 only aids the quantification of the Specified Value in different classes oI suits involving a commercial dispute.

9. Section 2(1)(i) the only provision which sets the lower limit of the specified value to the lowest denomination of 3 lakhs as would be evident from the words 'uhich shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher ualue, as may be notified by the Central Gouernment'. The lixation of three lakhs was pursuant to the Commercial Courts. Cornmercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 20 18 ('the Amendment Act, 20 18') wherein section 4(ll) substituted the earlier 7 'which shatl not be less than one crore rupees' 'tultlch shcL not be less than three lakh rupees'. (post amendment) I O. The substitution is reflected in tl're amended section 2(1)(i) rrhich defines 'Specified Value' in the 2O15 Act. Therefore, as on date, the Specified Value in relation to a comme rcial dispute shall not be less than three lakhs. I I . The argument on behall of the petitioner that the amendment to the specilied value may not be applicable to the State of Telangana in the absence of a Notification to that elfect is faliacious for the following reasons: 12 . First, section 2 ( I )(i) defines 'Specified Value' as the value of the subject matter in respect of a Suit as determined b1'' section 12 which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, 'as mag be notified bg the Central Gouernment'. The section does not contain any requirement of a separate Notification of the State Government for giving effect to the amendment, that is, reducrion of the specilied value from I crore to 3 lakh. ) 8 In fact, section 2(1)(i) only mentions Notilication by the Central Government for raising the base level lrom Rs.3 iakh to a higher value with regard to the specified value of a Commercial dispute. A learned Single Judge of this Court took the same view tn M/s. Sri Siniuasa Construction u- D MuraLidhar Raol .

13. Second, the expression 'Specified Value' in section 2(1)(i) is distinct and diflerent from 'pecuniary value' in section 3(1A) of the 2015 Act. Section 3(1A) ot the 2015 Act is set out belovr,. " Notu-titlstanding angthiq contained in this Act, the State Gouernment mag, afier ansultation with the concerned High Court, bg notification, specify such peatniary ualue uhtch shalt not be less than three lakh ntpees or such higher ualue, for whole or part of the State, as it mag consider necessary.'

14. Third, section 3(1A) is also the result of the Commercial Courts Amendment Act of 2018. Section 6(b) ol the Amendment Act, 2018 added to section 3(1) of the 2O 15 Act in relation to fixing the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts at the District Level within the territoria,l limits of the High Courts having ordinary original ' ' c.R.P.No.29? of 2o2s I 9 civil jurisdiction. Section 3(1) deals with constitution of Commercial Courts at the District Level and empowers the State Government, upon consultation with the concerned High Court, to constitute Commercial Courts at the District Level bv notilication.

15. The first proviso to section 3(1) empowers the State Government, in consultation with the concerned High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, to constitute Commerciai Courts at the District Judge Level I by notification. The second proviso to section 3(1) looks at rhe territorial limits of the concerned High Courts having ordinar_v original civil jurisdiction and gives the State Government the option, through Notification, to specify the pecuniary value of the Courts within such territory-which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniar,r, jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts. Notably, the second proviso does not contain any requirement on the State Government to consult with the concerned High Court for the purpose of fixing such pecuniarl' value. 10

16. The subsequent insertion of section 3(1A) pursuant to the 2018 Amendment begins with a non-obstante clause and contemplates consultation by the State Government with the concerned High Court for the purpose ol specilying the pecuniary value o[ the Courts as contemplated under the first and second proviso to section 3(1) by noti{ication which sha,11 not be less thetn three lakh rupees or such higher value for the whole or part of the State as it may consider necessary. 17 . Therefore, the 20 15 Act itself makes it clear that although section 2(1)(i) (specified value) was substituted and section 3(1A) (pecuniary value) u,as inserted in the 2O15 Act by the same Amendment Act, 20 18 and were brought into effect from 03.05.2018, both the provisions are distinct and marked by diflerent parameters altogether.

18. The difference would further be evident from of the Amendment Act, 2018. Section 2(i)(i) was substituted by section a (ll) , while section 3 ( 1 A) was inserted by section 6(b) of the Amendment Act, 2018. A more substantive difference rvould be evident from the definition of 'specified value' rvhich focuses on the value of the subject matter of the suit in relation to the commercial dispute, that is u,hether the suit qualifies for a commercial suit in terms of a minimum value in monetary terms. Section 3(1A) on Lhe other hand is concerned with the pecuniar5r limits of the Comrnercial Court u'ithin the territoria.l jurisdiction of the cor-rcerned High Court

19. In other words, ',r'hile specified value forms the core of the commercial dispute for admission into the regime of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, pecuniary value fixe s the competence-parameters ol the Court for receiving a commercial suit. While the former focuses on the value of the dispute, the latter sets the floor-limit capability of the receiving Court. The distinguishing features are being repeated in order to avoid confusion between 'specified'and 'pecuniary' values as envisaged in the 20 15 Act.

20. Apart from the difference between the two sections, it is also evident that the requirement of a Notification by the State Government in section 3(lA) cannot be read into or I I 12 1l imported in section 2(1)(i), which does not contemplate any such Notification save and except of the Central Government. The order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, in Bellam Balakishna u. Greenmount Deuelopers z , relied on by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is hence required to be placed in the context of the above discu ssion.

21. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the specified value of a Commercial dispute under section 2(1)(i) of the 2O15 Act contemplates a base threshold of three lakhs with effect from 03.05.2018. The amended section 2(1)(i) applies to the State of Telangana and no separate State Notification is required for giving effect to the said Amendment. The pecuniary value fixed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court under section 3(1A) is of an entirely different purport and is not relevant to the present case. , C.R.P.No.l749 of2023 l3

22. In any event, the prayer in the Suit renders the discussion academic. On a bare perusal, (i) Pral.er A is for recoverv of INR.58,58,96 1/ - which includes interest at 1B% per annum from 15.11.2O2O. (ii) Prayer B is for damages to the tune of INR.45,00,OO0/ (iii) Pra1,'cr C is for Ar,"'ard of interest pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amoul)t of INR. I ,03,58,96 1/-.

23. The petitioner's argument with regard to segregation of prayers (and quantum) is only lor the purpose of urging that the plaint lalis short of the specified value of one crore Sinct:, r.r'e have already held (and the statute makes it clear) that the speciliecl value is three lakhs or more, as opposecl to the pre-Amendment position of one crore, the argument is rejected as being q,ithout statutory basis.

24. We also deem it lit to reiterate that a matter rvould fa,ll u,ithin under the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court or the\" mmercial Division of a High Court subject to 14 (i) the existence of a Commercial dispute within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act and (ii) the Commercial dispute being rvithin the specified value as provided in section 2(1)(i) read with section 12 of the 2015 Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Entetprises Limited u. K.S. Infraspace LLP 3

25. [n other ,"r,ords, a Suit must satisfy both of the above criteria for entering into the statutory regime under The Commercial Courts Act, 2O 15.

26. Although, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the commercia-l nature of the ' disputc, a suit for recovery may fall under scveral of the categories under section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act w'hich defines a 'commercial dispute' including clause (i) thereunder. Section 12(1)(a) of the 20 15 Act specifically mentions 'recovery of money' inclusive of interest as a relief I in a Suit or applicatior-r . 1zrz6'rs scc sss l5 I

27. The impugned order does not contain any discussion with regard to the specified va-lue of the Suit and in fact proceeds on the assumption that the specified va-lue is one crore, i.e., the pre-Amendment position. The Trial Court however dismissed the petitioner's application for rejection ol plaint on the ground that the plaint discloses a cause of action for filing of tl-re Suit. Although the Trial Court has not delved into the aspect of specified value, u,hich is the petitioner's onl.!' argument belore us, u'e agree with the conclusion of the Trial Court in terms of dismissing the I petitioner's application under Order Vil Rule 11 of the CPC.

28. Order 7 Rule I 1 (d) ol the CPC contemplates rejection of a plaint rvhere the Suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The argument for rejection of the plaint fails since the reliefs claimed in the plaint satisfies the requirement of the specified value as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the 2O15 Act. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the CRP for challenging the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing the petitioner's application lor rejection of plaint. 16

29. CRP.No.1932 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the petitioner/ defendant shall be at liberty to argue all points available to it under the law. There shall be no order as to costs. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA (For His Lordships kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice GAOI PRAVEEN KUMAR (For His Lordships kind Perusal) To,-

1. The Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Rangareddy District at L-B.Nagar. 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 1 1 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, Hagh Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for One CC to Sri Sharad Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri lstiaq Hussain, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies NVB/ABK w HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER CRP.No.1932 ot 2025 I 't HE SIA lJ rt8 2026 J' {;) t o i/ Cr() * DISMISSING THE CIV!L REVISION 9 0