(D/L-19) v. Truvolt Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
The order impugned is set aside
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 7 r. 11
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ss. 2(c), 3
Judgment
The petitioners are the defendants of the Money Suit No. 1895 of 2022 pending before the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. The petitioners had taken out an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint of the said suit inter alia on the grounds that the dispute sought to be raised in the said suit is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. The learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said application holding inter alia that the suit is under the heading “Money Suit”, not a “Commercial Suit” and the Commercial Court has not yet started under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The dispute raised in the suit is a commercial dispute but the ground on which the petitioners are praying rejection of the plaint of the said suit does not attract Order VII Rule 11 of the Code but Order VII Rule 10 thereof.
2 The learned advocate for the petitioner invites my attention to the notification of the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal bearing No. 156JL dated March 20, 2020 which is quoted below:- “In exercise of the power conferred by sub- section (IA) of Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of the earlier notification No. 254-JL, dated the 15th November 2018, the Governor, after consultation with the High Court, Calcutta, vide Memo Nos. 7801-RG, dated the 20th December, 2019; 910-RG, dated the 17th February, 2020; and 911-RG, dated the 17th February, 2020, is pleased hereby to specify, with immediate effect, the pecuniary jurisdiction, in terms of the of the commercial disputes, as mentioned below:- (a) In case of Commercial Courts at Siliguri, Asansol, Alipore, and Rajarhat, of an amount not less than rupees thirty lakh; (b) In case of Commercial Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta of an amount-(i) not less than rupees three lakh and not more than rupees lakh exclusively; and (ii) exceeding rupees ten lakh but not exceeding rupees one crore, concurrently with the Commercial Division of the High Court, Calcutta; (c) In case of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Calcutta, of an amount exceeding rupees ten lakh.
Operative part
3 In view of the said notification, the suit should have been transferred to the Commercial Division of the High Court, Calcutta. The order impugned is set aside. The learned Trial Judge is requested to decide the said application afresh in accordance with law, treating it is an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code. C.O. 3418 of 2024 is disposed of with the above terms without any order as to costs. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Biswajit Basu, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The order impugned is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 7 r. 11; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — ss. 2(c), 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 15 Nov 2018. The bench was BISWAJIT BASU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.