Karnataka High Court
Bank Of India vs Smt. Manjula Gurushantayya ... on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
RFA No. 100351 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100351 OF 2023 (MON-)
BETWEEN:
BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF
UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 AND
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE,
C-5, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051
HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT RAGHAVENDRA
TALKIES ROAD, NO.2, NEAR MAIN BUS STAND,
MUDHOL-587313 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR K.
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. MUDHOL
TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
GIRIJA A (BY SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
BYAHATTI
AND:
1. SMT. MANJULA GURUSHANTAYYA VIRAKTAMATH,
AGE. 35 YEARS,
Location: OCC. CONTRACTOR,
HIGH
COURT OF R/O. BANNUR POST RAMDURGA TALUK,
KARNATAKA
DIST. BELAGAVI,
KARNATAKA
PINCODE-587122.
2. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
RAITARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT,
RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
TQ.MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALAKOT,
PIN CODE. 587122.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
RFA No. 100351 of 2023
3. SRI. RAMAPPA SIDDAPPA TALEWAD,
AGE. 66 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
CHAIRMAN, RAITARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE
KARKHANE NIYAMIT (RSSKN), MUDHOL,
TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT,
PIN CODE. 587313.
4. SRI. RAMESH S/O. APPASAB TUNGAL,
AGE. 56 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GULGAL JAMBAGI,
TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
PIN CODE. 587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2023
PASSED IN O.S.NO.483/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL AT
MUDHOL AND TO ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
RFA No. 100351 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and respondents.
2. This appeal is filed against the order in O.S.No.483/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, rejecting the plaint.
3. The suit is filed by the appellant-Bank to recover the loan amount alleged to have been lent to defendant No.1 and it is further stated that the rest of the defendants are the guarantors to the said loan.
4. The contesting defendant filed application under Order VII Rule (11)(a) and Rule (11)(d) contending that there is no cause of action to file a suit and the suit is barred in view of the bar contended on the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'Act of 2015').
5. The Trial Court accepted the contention that the dispute raised before it is a 'commercial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. The Court -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176 RFA No. 100351 of 2023 also held that there is no cause of action to file a suit and accordingly, rejected the plaint.
6. Aggrieved by the Order rejecting the plaint, the plaintiff is in appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that in the view of the finding by the Trial Court that the dispute is a 'commercial dispute' within the definition of 'commercial dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015, the Court could not have decided the contention relating to cause of action as it has no jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents jointly submit that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute raised squarely fell within the definition of 'commercial dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015.
9. This Court has perused the plaint as well as definition of the expression 'commercial dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176 RFA No. 100351 of 2023
10. On going through the definition and the contentions raised in the plaint it is very much evident that the dispute raised suit falls within the definition of 'commercial dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(c)(i).
11. Thus, the Trial Court justified in holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the Trial Court committed an error in holding that there is "no cause of action" after having held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Since, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the further enquiry relating to cause of action could not have been made. The trial Court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. To the said extent the order of Trial Court has to be set aside.
12. It is also noticed that the suit would lie before the commercial Court and format of the plaint to be presented before the Commercial Court is very way different from what is presented in the regular suits before the Civil Courts.
13. Hence, the on return of the plaint, the plaintiff is at liberty to present the newly drafted plaint as required -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176 RFA No. 100351 of 2023 under the Commercial Courts Act before the Commercial Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and the same shall be accompanied by the plaint to be returned by the Trial Court.
14. The impugned order is set aside to the above said extent, and the plaintiff is permitted to file a fresh plaint before the commercial Court in the format prescribed. The trial Court shall return the plaint to the plaintiff.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited V/s Modern Construction and Company1 and referring to the said judgment would urge that the Court be paid in the suit be ordered to be adjusted to the Court fee payable in Commercial suit.
16. The Court fee paid in the original suit shall be adjusted in the commercial suit in case filed by the plaintiff.
17. It is also noticed that the remand of the matter is necessitated owing to the erroneous order of the Trial Court. 1 (2014) 1 SCC 648 -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176 RFA No. 100351 of 2023 Hence, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to refund of Court fee paid in this appeal.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in-part.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside in-part. The finding on jurisdiction of the Court is upheld.
iii. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to return the plaint to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to file before the suit jurisdictional Commercial Court.
iv. The appellant is entitled to refund of the Court fee paid before this Court.
v. It is also directed that the Court fee paid before the Trial Court shall be adjusted towards the Court fee payable by the plaintiff/appellant, in case the Commercial suit is filed before the Commercial Court.
vi. It is also made clear that since, the format of the Commercial Court suit is different from the suit in the Civil Court, the plaintiff-appellant is permitted to make file a separate plaint to bring -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176 RFA No. 100351 of 2023 it in compliance with the requirement in the Commercial Courts Act and said plaint shall be accompanied by the plaint filed before the Senior Civil Court.
vii. In case, the suit is filed within 15 days from the date of return of the plaint, it shall be deemed that the suit is filed on the date when the suit was originally filed before the Civil Court.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0