Subrata Kumar Ghose vs Rites Limited And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2293 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Subrata Kumar Ghose vs Rites Limited And Another on 28 April, 2025

Author: Arijit Banerjee

Bench: Arijit Banerjee

OD-36
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                  ORIGINAL SIDE

                                 APD/9/2024
                                    WITH
                                 CS/69/2017

                           SUBRATA KUMAR GHOSE
                                     VS
                         RITES LIMITED AND ANOTHER


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
                       AND
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
  Date : April 28, 2025.

                                                                     Appearance:
                                                                 Mr. Arijit Bose, Adv.
                                                                    Mr. Jit Roy, Adv.
                                                          Ms. Atreyee Senapati, Adv.
                                                                  ...for the appellant.

                                                            Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.
                                                            Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.
                                                              ...for the respondents.

The Court: This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated

January 25, 2023, whereby the appellant's suit was dismissed by a learned

Judge of this court.

A contract was awarded to the appellant by the respondents. The

contract was subsequently terminated by the respondents on the ground of

poor progress of work. Earnest money deposit, performance guarantee and

security deposit were forfeited by the respondents. Making a claim of

Rs.2.89 crores approximately, the appellant filed CS No. 69 of 2017.

Although the learned Judge recorded evidence of the plaintiff and

permitted the plaintiff to exhibit about 77 documents, the learned Judge did

not address the merits of the case. This is because, the learned Judge found

that the dispute involved is commercial in nature and going by the

provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the suit should have been filed in

the Commercial Division of this Court. Solely on that ground the learned

Judge dismissed the suit.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the

proper course of action should have been to return the plaint for being

presented before the Commercial Division of this Court.

Hence, we set aside the order under appeal. The plaint is returned to

the plaintiff for being presented before the Commercial Division within four

weeks from date. If that is done, the Department shall re-number the suit

and the suit can be proceeded with in accordance with law.

Accordingly, APD No. 9 of 2024 is disposed of.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)

(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)

KB AR (CR)