✦ High Court of India · 22 Jan 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 22 Jan 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
22 Jan 2025
Length
1,044 words

.,. Petitioner/ Plaintiff. Redcty, Office at Modern Profound Tech Park, 7th []oor, Sun ey No.l2, Whitefield Road, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothagucla, Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081, ]',.S.

2. Solipuram Venkat Reddy , S/ o. Sri Manikya Reddy, Managing Partner, M/s. Profound Builders, C/o. Modern Profound Tech Park, 7tr, [[oor, Sur',,ey No.12, Whitefield Road, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081, T.S.

3. M,zs. SVR Group United, Flat No.G-4, Office ai Ivlodern Profound'I'ech Park, Survey No.12, \Mhitefield Roacl, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothagu<Ia, Konrlapur, F[1'derabad, 500081, T.S., Rep. by its Managing Director.

4. M/s. Gaja Engineering Private Limited, Office Flat No. 202/P, 203/P and 204- Part, and Modern Profound Tech Park, Surwey No,12, Whitcfield Roac1, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothaguc{a, Kondapur, Hyderab;id,500081, T.S., Rep. bv its Managing Director.

5. M/ s. Phenom People Private Ltd, Office at Flat No. 301(Part), Modern l'rofound 'l.ech Park, Survey No.12, Whitefield Road, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothaguda, Konclapur, Hyderaba<I, 500081, T.S., Rep. by its Managing Director.

6. M/s. Qvantel Software Solutions Ltd, Office at Flat No. 301 (Part), Modern Profound Tech Park, Survey No.12, Whitefield Road, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hydelabad-S0O 081, T.S., Rep. by its Managing Director. 7. M/s. Appicon I T Private Ltd, Flat No. 601, Modern Profouncl Tech Park, Survey No.12, Whitefield Road, Opp. Ramalayam, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081, T.S., Rep. by its Managing Director. (Respondents No. 3 to 7 are not necessary parties to the Iretition). ... Responclents/ Defendants. -7 Petition Uncler liection 24 of C.P.C r/w. Section 2(1)(c) ot the Commercial , Court At, 2015, I)raving that in the circurnstances stated in tl'rr: afficlavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to forthn'ith n'ith-d-aw the suit O.S. No.330 of 2022, fronr lhe Court of the VI Addiiional DistlictJudge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally br. transferring the same to the Special Juclge for Trial and Disposal of Commerc al Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, at L.l} Nagar, for the purpose of proper ndjrrdication on payment of cieficit Court Fee il anv, under the pror.isions of Scctior-r 2 (1)(c) of the Comrnercial Disputes .Act, 20'1.i. IA NO: 7 OF 2024 Petition under S:ction 151 CPC praying that ir-r the circumstauces stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim sta)' of all further proceedings in O.S-No.330 of 2022, on the file of the Court of tht \/l Aclditional District Judge, Ranga Rc,ldy District, at Kukatpally, pending ,1 sposal of the aboi,e Transfer Petition. Counsel for the Petitic,rer Sli K.V.Rajendra Prasad Counsel for the Responlent No.1 & 2: Sri Krishna Kishore Chinnarn T'he Court macle the. fol on,ing: ORDER r ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA Tr.C.M.P.No.3 18 of 2024 This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioner to transfer OS.No.330 of 2022 from the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, at Kukatpally, to the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Rangareddy District, at LB Nagar.

2. Heard Sri KV Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed O.S.No.330 of 2022 before the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally, seeking eviction of the respondents and recovery of arrears of monthly rentals. The suit is pending adjudication, with the respondents having hled their written statements and counter-affidavits. He averred that the suit is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, as the dispute is commercial in nature and falls under the Commercial Courts Act, ! 2 SKS,J Tt.C.M. P.No.31B of 2024 ) 2O15. He contended that continqztion of the suit proceedings before the VI Additional District Judge will not serve a1,y' purpose, therefore, prayed this Court to transfer the same to the Special Court for Trial And Disposal of Commercial Disputes, T,elangaaa, at L.B. Naga -, to avoid irreparable loss and hardsh rp to the petitioner, w,ro is dependent on monthly rentals and obligated to pay properfy t.rx 4- l,earnecl :ounsel for the respondents, concurred wit]r the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner.

5. In the hght of the submissions made by both sides and on perusing the rnaterial available on record, and on considering the value of the suit .urhich is more than one crore, this Court ;is of the opinion that thc said suit be taken up by the Court dealing with Commercial Di sputes

6. In view t.h,_.1661, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous pr:tition is allowed. OS.Nc,.il3o of 2022 stands transferred from the fi[er of the VI Additionat District Judge, Rangareddy District, at Kukatpaily, to the hle of the special Judge for Trial and Disposal of com.rnerciai Disputes, Rangetreddy District, at LB Nagar. The Court conr:erned is hereby direc te d to transmit the entire case file relating to 3 SKS,J Tt,C.M.P.No.316 of 2024 OS.No.330 of 2022, after duly indexed, within a period of one (l) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the other side. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

1. The VI Aclclitional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kul(atpally. 2. The Specia[ Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar,

3. One CC to Sri K.V.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Krishna Kishore Chinnam, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies JCK/gh Yt' 'l- ' ) 4r€ v * 0 5 ii.''l 825 \\ L/t'arr _{::::_: \1Cl HIGH COURI' DATED:22/07/202!; ORDEI{ 'IRCMP.No.318 of 20ZL Allowing the Tr. C.N,l.P. rvithout costs n .oP(eA k,

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments