Telangana High Court
P. Prem Kumar vs P. Premalatha on 18 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3314, 3315, 3316, 3552 and 3553 of 2024
% Dated 18.11.2024
C.R.P.Nos.3314 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ M. Mohan Rao S/o.M. Bhaskar Rao
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.302, Shivakailash Apartment,
Opp: Hyderabad Metro Water Works,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.
... Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3315 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ P. Premalatha W/o.P.B. Chowdary,
Aged: about 67 years, Occ: Housewife,
C/o.M.Venkateswara Rao,
Flat No.302, Shivkailash Apartments,
Opp: Hyderabad Metro Water Works,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.
... Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3316 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ M. Mohan Rao S/o.M. Bhaskar Rao
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.302, Shivakailash Apartment,
Opp: Hyderabad Metro Water Works,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.
... Respondent
2
C.R.P.Nos.3552 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ K.S.P. Leelavathi (died per LRs)
K. Sreenivas Babu S/o.K.Gopal Rao,
Aged: about 54 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o.Villa No.2, The Meadow Dance
Sagar Hills, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad - 500 030 and another.
... Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3553 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ K.S.P. Leelavathi (died per LRs)
K. Sreenivas Babu S/o.K.Gopal Rao,
Aged: about 54 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o.Villa No.2, The Meadow Dance
Sagar Hills, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad - 500 030 and another.
... Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.R.A.Achuthanand
^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr. Velagapudi Srinivas
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2008) 8 SCC 612
2. (2020) 4 SCC 234
3. 2024 LawSuit (Del) 53
4. (2019) 17 SCC 385
5. (2005) 4 SCC 741
6. 2020 SCC Online TS 3337
7. 1961 SCC OnLine SC 292
8. (2022) 2 SCC 25
3
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3314, 3315, 3316, 3552
and 3553 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao) Civil Revision Petition Nos.3314, 3315 and 3553 of 2024 are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 13.02.2024 passed in E.A.No.29 of 2023 in C.E.P.No.10 of 2022, E.A.No.28 of 2023 in C.E.P.No.11 of 2022 and E.A.No.27 of 2023 in C.E.P.No.12 of 2022 respectively passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in allowing review applications. 1.1. Civil Revision Petition Nos.3316 and 3552 of 2024 are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 28.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.667 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.507 of 2022 and I.A.No.819 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.505 of 2022 respectively passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in allowing applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
4
2. Since all the civil revision petitions arise out of an award dated 23.05.2022 passed in Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 by the learned Arbitrator, these matters have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
3. Heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Velagapudi Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. The respondents filed Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to, as 'the Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising out of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (for short, 'DAGPA') dated 04.03.2006 between the petitioner and respondents and the said applications were allowed by this Court by its common order dated 30.04.2020, appointing Justice Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, High Court Judge (Retd.) as sole Arbitrator. The respondents filed claim statement before the Arbitrator to declare that the DAGPAs 5 dated 04.03.2006 entered by them in respect of their properties to an extent of 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and 2,437 sq. yards in Sy.No.70 situated at Serilingampally Village, Ranga Reddy District, for construction of residential complex/independent houses/row houses etc., be terminated and invalid and to cancel the Deed and to hand over the original DAGPAs and also to direct the petitioner to execute the Deeds of Cancellation etc. The petitioner filed statement of defence denying the claim of the respondents. Learned Arbitrator after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties passed award, as prayed for, in the Arbitration Applications on 23.05.2022 holding that where time has to be held to be essence of contract; as the claimants/respondents cannot be made to indefinitely wait; when the contract became impossible to perform for want of roads; and on account of ambiguity in terms of Ex.A.1 document, there is possibility of the contract being void, the termination of the contract cannot be said to be illegal. The learned Arbitrator further held that the petitioner is entitled to return the advance amount paid to 6 the respondents with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till the date of repayment. 4.2. Pursuant to the above said award, the respondents have filed execution petitions vide C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC., seeking execution of the cancellation of DAGPAs bearing document Nos.4907, 4906 and 4904 of 2006, dated 04.03.2006 and direct the petitioner to execute the deeds of cancellation of DAGPAs on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. The said execution petitions were dismissed, by its order dated 16.08.2023, on the ground that the said Court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said execution petitions. Thereafter, the respondents filed applications vide E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Section 114 of the CPC., to review the order dated 16.08.2023 on the ground that the respondents/Decree-holders filed Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator and in the said applications, the value of the subject property is mentioned at Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and 7 Rs.1,23,13,860/- and also filed market value certificates of the scheduled properties, the value is shown as Rs.9,000/- per sq. yard and the extents of lands are 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and 2,437 sq. yards respectively and the same was not disputed by the petitioner and the value is more than One Crore and the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes is having jurisdiction to entertain the execution petitions. In the said applications, the petitioner filed counters denying the averments. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the said applications i.e., E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023, by its order dated 13.02.2024.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the above C.R.P.Nos.3314, 3315 and 3553 of 2024.
4.3. Aggrieved by the award dated 23.05.2022, the petitioner filed A.O.P.No.507 and 505 of 2022 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. In the said AOPs, the respondents have filed applications vide I.A.Nos.667 and 819 of 2023 respectively invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC., seeking to return the original petitions i.e., A.O.P.Nos.507 and 505 of 2022 on the ground that the 8 dispute between the parties is commercial in nature and the specified value of the subject properties are more than Rupees One Crore and as per Section 10(3) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, all the applications and appeals arising out of arbitration shall be filed and disposed of only by the Commercial Courts. Learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, allowed the said applications by its order dated 28.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.Nos.3316 and 3552 of 2024.
4.4. Initially, the petitioner filed civil miscellaneous appeals and subsequently the same were converted into civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applications filed by the respondents vide E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 seeking review of the order dated 16.08.2023 is not maintainable under law, as the scope of review is very limited, especially when there is no error apparent on the face of the record and hence, the Court is not having power to review the 9 order. He further contended that the respondents have not mentioned the specified value in the execution petitions stipulated under the provisions of the Commercial Disputes Act or filed any document to show that the Special Court for Commercial Disputes is having jurisdiction to entertain C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 to enforce the award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 23.05.2022. The Court below rightly dismissed C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 on 16.08.2023 by giving cogent reasons, however, the very same Court has allowed the review applications i.e., E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 on 13.02.2024 reviewing the earlier order and the same is not permissible under law.
5.2. He further submitted that once the Court decided that the respondents have not mentioned the specified value and further observed that according to DAGPAs, the market value of the properties mentioned below is Rupees One Crore only and dismissed C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022, through order dated 16.08.2023, the very same Court is not having power to review the said order basing upon the new material placed by the petitioner, as the scope of review is very limited. 10 5.3. He also submitted that the respondents ought to have questioned the order dated 16.08.2023 by way of revision, on the other hand, they simply filed the review petitions as the scope of review is very limited. In such circumstances, the Court below ought not to have allowed the applications. 5.4. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another 1;
2. Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.P.No.3774 of 2024 in Rev.Appln.SR.No.8439 of 2024 between S.Ganeshraja (died) v.
T.L.Dhanalakshmi;
3. BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited 2; and
4. Simentech India Private Limited v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited 3.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents:
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents in the Arbitration 1 (2008) 8 SCC 612 2 (2020) 4 SCC 234 3 2024 LawSuit (Del) 53 11 Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 filed under Section 11 of the Act, specifically mentioned that the value of the subject properties is Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and Rs.1,23,13,860/- and also filed market value certificates of the scheduled properties and the value is shown as Rs.9,000/-
per sq. yard and the extents of lands are 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and 2,437 sq. yards respectively and the same was not disputed by the petitioner and the said applications were allowed on 30.04.2020 appointing sole Arbitrator and Arbitrary Tribunal passed award dated 23.05.2022 allowing the claim of the respondents.
6.2. He further submitted that the dispute is of commercial nature and as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, if the property value is more than Rupees One Crore, the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes alone is having jurisdiction to adjudicate C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 not by any other Court. The Court below dismissed C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 only on the ground that the respondents have not mentioned the value in the execution petitions nor filed any document, though the respondents specifically mentioned the value of the subject properties is at 12 Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and Rs.1,23,13,860/- at the time of filing of the Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 and the Court below committed an error apparent on record while dismissing the applications. Hence, the respondents have filed applications i.e., E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Section 114 of CPC., and the Court below rightly allowed the applications and passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2024. 6.3. He further submitted that A.O.P.Nos.505 and 507 filed by the petitioner aggrieved by award passed by the Arbitrator before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, are not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction and the said Court rightly accepted the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.819 of 2023 and 667 of 2023 and directed the petitioner to present before proper Court. Pursuant to the said order dated 28.02.2024 in A.O.P.Nos.505 and 507 of 2022, the respondents have already re-submitted before the Commercial Court and the same was numbered as C.O.P.Nos.25 and 27 of 2024 respectively and the order passed by the Court below is already worked out and by virtue 13 of the same, the C.R.P.Nso.3316 and 3552 of 2024 are liable to be dismissed.
6.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta 4;
2. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club 5;
3. Manoj Khandelwal v. Delight Ventures & Realtors (P) Ltd. 6;
4. Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath Singh and others 7; and
5. Union of India and others v. N.Murugesan and others 8.
Analysis:
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Before proceeding further, we may take note of the scope of review which is well delineated by a catena of decisions of 4 (2019) 17 SCC 385 5 (2005) 4 SCC 741 6 2020 SCC Online TS 3337 7 1961 SCC OnLine SC 292 8 (2022) 2 SCC 25 14 the Supreme Court. In Kamal Sengupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the limited grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC., which are: (i) discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) an error apparent on the face of the record, and (iii) "any other sufficient reason," which must be similar in nature to the first two grounds. The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is narrow and can only be invoked to correct evident and significant mistakes, not for re- argument of the case. This principle, as previously interpreted in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526], underscores that review is not a means to reconsider issues that could have been raised initially, but rather to address manifest errors to prevent injustice.
9. In Sunil Vasudeva (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a review application is maintainable only under specific conditions, as clarified in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [(2013) 8 SCC 320] that review will be maintainable on the ground that the discovery of new, significant evidence that was previously unavailable despite due diligence, a 15 mistake or error that is apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason comparable to these grounds. However, review cannot be granted for repetitive or minor arguments, nor can it serve as a disguised appeal to re-evaluate evidence or re-argue the case. A review is permissible only when a patent error affects the soundness of the judgment or leads to a miscarriage of justice, rather than for mere alternative interpretations.
10. In Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. 16
11. In Manoj Khandelwal (supra), this Court emphasized that under Section 37(1)(a) of the Court Fees Act, when a suit is filed to cancel a document that affects rights, titles, or interests in property (movable or immovable), the court fee must be calculated based on the value of the subject matter. Specifically, if the entire document is sought to be cancelled, the fee should be computed on the total value of the property or amount covered by that document. In this case, the petitioners failed to pay the requisite court fee for cancelling a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, which impacted property rights, thus underscoring the principle that court fees must align with the document's full financial value when it is entirely contested for cancellation.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the value of the subject property is mentioned in the Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 filed under Section 11 of the Act, specifically mentioned that the value of the subject properties is Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and Rs.1,23,13,860/- and also filed market value certificates. It is already stated supra the respondents have brought to the notice of the Court below that the value of the subject property is more than One 17 Crore and also mentioned specified value in the Arbitration Application Nos. 133, 134 and 135 of 1994 and the Court below rightly passed the impugned order invoking the provisions of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
13. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondents were entered into Development Agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) vide document Nos.4907, 4906 and 4904 of 2006 dated 04.03.2003 in respect of the lands to an extent of 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and 2,437 sq. yards respectively in Sy.No.70 situated at Serilingampally Village of Ranga Reddy District, to develop the land into row houses/villas/residential complexes etc., and subsequently disputes were arose between them and the respondents got issued legal notice dated 15.06.2019 cancelling DAGPAs and also got issued another legal notice dated 19.08.2019 and requested the petitioner to cooperate for execution of deed of cancellation etc. When there is no response, the respondents invoked arbitration clauses and filed Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 under Section 11 of the Act before this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between 18 them. This Court after hearing the parties allowed the Arbitration Applications, by its order dated 30.04.2020 and appointed Justice P.Swaroop Reddy, Judge (Retd.) as sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents arising out of DAGPAs dated 04.03.2006. It is also an undisputed fact that the learned Arbitrator was pleased to pass common Award dated 23.05.2022 in Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 allowing the claims of the respondents, as prayed for, holding that termination of the contract cannot be said to be illegal and further held that the petitioner is entitled to return the of advance amount paid to the respondents with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till the date of repayment to him. It further appears from the record that pursuant to the award, the respondents have paid an amount of Rs.6,20,408/- vide Demand Draft No.410373 drawn on Union Bank of India, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, dated 06.06.2022 in Arbitration Application No.133 of 2019, Rs.6,46,616/- vide Demand Draft No.422220 drawn on Union Bank of India, Tenali, dated 01.06.2022 in Arbitration Application No.134 of 2019 and Rs.6,20,408/- vide Demand 19 Draft No.512905 drawn on ICICI Bank, Hyderabad, dated 04.06.2022 in Arbitration Application No.135 of 2019, and the same were sent along with letters through registered post and the same was received by the petitioner.
14. It further reveals from the record that the respondents filed execution petitions, vide C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 seeking direction to the petitioner/Judgment-debtor to execute the deed of cancellation of DAGPAs in compliance of the award of the learned Arbitrator dated 23.05.2022 invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of C.P.C. The said C.E.Ps., were dismissed on 16.08.2023 on the ground that the respondents have not mentioned the value or filed any document showing the market value and they have not satisfied the requirement of specified value stipulated under Section 12 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondents filed E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Section 114 of CPC., to review the order dated 16.08.2023 on the ground that the value of subject properties are more than Rupees One Crore and the value of the properties are specifically mentioned as Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration Application No.133 of 2019, Rs.1,28,34,371/- in Arbitration 20 Application No.134 of 2019 and Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration Application No.135 of 2019 and also enclosed the market value certificates and the same were not disputed by the petitioner and the said Arbitration Applications were allowed by this Court on 30.04.2020 and learned Arbitrator adjudicated the disputes between the parties and passed award dated 23.05.2022.
15. The record reveals that aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 23.05.2022, the petitioner filed A.O.P.Nos.507 and 505 of 2022 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. In the said A.O.Ps., the respondents filed applications i.e., I.A.Nos.667 and 819 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for return of the original petition on the ground that the dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute and the value of the dispute is more than One Crore, hence, the Commercial Court alone is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The learned Judge after considering the contentions of the respective parties and provisions of the Act allowed the applications, by its order dated 28.02.2024. Pursuant to the said order, the 21 petitioner re-presented A.O.P.Nos.505 and 507 of 2022 before the Commercial Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and the same were numbered as C.O.P.Nos.25 and 27 of 2024 respectively.
16. It is pertinent to place on record that in the Arbitration Applications filed under Section 11 of the Act, the respondents/applicants specifically mentioned the value of the applications is more than Rupees One Crore i.e., Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration Application No.133 of 2019, Rs.1,28,34,371/- in Arbitration Application No.134 of 2019 and Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration Application No.135 of 2019 and the same was not disputed by the petitioner. Basing on the said valuation, this Court entertained the Arbitration Applications and adjudicated the proceedings and allowed the same and appointed a retired High Court Judge as an Arbitrator, by its order dated 30.04.2020.
17. It is relevant to extract sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 28 of 2018), which reads as follows:
22
"Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject-matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12, which shall not be less than one crore rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government."
18. As per the provisions of the Act, learned Arbitrator adjudicated the disputes and passed the award on 23.05.2022. Subsequent to passing of the award by the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the value of the property is below Rupees One Crore and the Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the execution petitions and the stand taken by the petitioner amounts to approbate and reprobate and the same is not permissible under law.
19. As soon as it was brought to the notice of the Court that the specified value mentioned in the Arbitration Applications under Section 11 of the Act are more than Rupees One Crore, the Court below allowed E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 holding that at the time of passing of the order in C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022, the said fact was not brought to the Court and the same can be rectified by 23 invoking the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC. The Court below rightly reviewed the order dated 16.08.2023 through impugned order dated 13.02.2024.
20. It is already stated supra, pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2024, the Arbitration Applications filed by the petitioner was returned and the petitioner has taken back the said Applications and re-submitted the same before the competent Court i.e., Commercial Court and the same were numbered as C.O.P.Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 2024. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the C.E.Ps., filed by the respondents is not tenable under law. Further, the respondents have not filed review applications seeking to review the order basing on the present market value certificate. The respondents have filed review applications basing on the valuation mentioned in Arbitration Applications under Section 11 of the Act in the year 2019 pursuant to the market value certificates of the year 2019 only and the same was not disputed by the petitioner.
24
21. The principle established in BGS SGS Soma JV (supra) is that the jurisdiction for appeals in commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is governed by the specific provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996, particularly Section 37, which limits the grounds for appeal. The Commercial Courts Act does not provide an independent right of appeal but rather sets the forum for appeals, which must align with the specific conditions set out in the Arbitration Act. The case reinforces the need for a harmonious interpretation of both statutes to ensure the speedy resolution of commercial disputes and the expeditious enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.
22. In Simentech India Private Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court held that in any arbitration case, the Specified Value would continually get revised. Consequently, if the Specified Value is initially below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, it would eventually fall within the jurisdiction of a High Court simply due to the accrual of interest over time. This outcome would contravene the legislative intent behind establishing a specific threshold for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts. Hence, it is necessary to consider the portion of 25 interest accrued up to the date of invocation of arbitration as part of the 'aggregate value' in accordance with Section 12(2) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
23. The decisions in BGS SGS Soma JV (supra) and Simentech India Private Limited (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the respondents have specifically mentioned the value of the subject property in the Arbitration Applications, which are filed in the year 2019 along with market value certificates, the value of the property is more than Rupees One Crore and the nature of the dispute is commercial dispute.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in E.A.Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2023 as well as the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.667 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.505 of 2023 and I.A.No.819 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.507 of 2023 exercising the 26 supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
25. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 18.11.2024 L.R. Copy to be marked (b/o) mar