M/S Bangalore International ... vs M/S Ceekay Tea Break Private ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5572 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

           W.P. NO.6853 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN

M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ADMINISTRATION BLOCK
KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONL AIRPORT
BENGALURU - 560300
RERPESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
MR. PRAVAT PAIKRAY

                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S S NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S CEEKAY TEA BREAK PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.5
1ST FLOOR, AISHWARYA APARTMENT
8/12, REST HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

                                            ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)
                                   2




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03RD, MARCH, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED ON
I.A.NO.1 AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION IN O.S.NO.461 OF
2021 AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the defendant in OS

No.461 of 2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Devanahalli, challenging the order dated 03.02.2022

(Annexure-J), allowing IA.I filed by the plaintiff under Order

39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The office has raised objection with regard to the

maintainability of the Writ Petition.

3. I have heard Sri S.S.Nagananda, learned Senior

counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Sumana Naganand, for

the petitioner and Sri. Siji Malayil, for the

respondent/caveator.

4. Sri S S. Nagananda, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner argued that trial Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff with regard to the

jurisdiction conferred under the subject of Commercial Courts

Act, 2005. Therefore, he contended that since the court itself

has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the impugned order

passed by the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of

Code of Civil Procedure is nonest and required to be re-

considered by this court by exercising power under Article

227 of Constitution of India. In this regard, he relied on the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surya

Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others reported in

(2003) 6 SCC 675 and in the case of Radhey Shyam and

another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others reported in (2015)

5 SCC 423 and contended that this court having ample

power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to

entertain the petition against the order passed by the trial

Court on application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of

Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Senior counsel further

argued that, while exercising the jurisdiction by the High

Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India,

even if there is an alternative remedy available, in the case,

rules of natural justice have not been followed, the writ

petition be accepted.

5. In this regard, I have carefully considered the

objection raised by the office. Perusal of the judgment

referred by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to the

jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of

Constitution of India, however, this Court having supervisory

jurisdiction against the subordinate Courts under Articles 226

and 227 of Constitution of India. However, in view of the

language employed under Order 43 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of

Civil Procedure, which provides for appeal from the original

orders. Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure

provides for the appeal shall lie on the order passed by the

trial Court. Though, learned Senior Counsel argued that High

Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition,

though there is alternative remedy or principles of natural

justice is curtailed or with regard to jurisdiction issues

involved, however, following the language employed under

Order 43 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the

view that, writ petition is not maintainable, however, liberty

is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate suit before the

competent Court. Accordingly, office objections are sustained

and writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB