Karnataka High Court
C Krishnaiah Chetty And Co Pvt Ltd vs C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Pvt Ltd on 26 June, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21973-DB
COMAP No. 229 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. C KRISHNAIAH CHETTY AND CO. PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT THE TOUCHSTONE B
BLOCK, NO.2/4, 4TH FLOOR,
MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001,
REP. THROUTH ITS DIRECTOR,
MR GANESH NARAYAN.
2. GANESH NARAYAN,
DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT NO 1.
SON OF LATE MR. C.V. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by BELUR
RANGADHAMA 3. C. VALLI NARAYAN,
NANDINI DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT NO 1.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF WIFE OF LATE MR. C.V. NARAYAN,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 RESIDING AT
NO. 44, OSBORNE ROAD,
ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.N.PHANIDRA, SR. COUNSEL A/W
MISS KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21973-DB
COMAP No. 229 of 2023
AND:
1. C KRISHNIAH CHETTY AND SONS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35,
COMMERCIAL STREET,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. C V HAYAGRIV,
S/O LATE C VENKATACHALAPATHY CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
3. MS VISALA HAYAGRIV,
W/O MR C V HAYAGRIV,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
4. MR C VINOD HAYAGRIV,
S/O MR C V HAYAGRIV,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
5. MRS C TRIVENI VINOD,
W/O MR VINOD HAYAGRIV,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
6. MR CHAITANYA V COTHA,
S/O MR VINOD HAYAGRIV,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
7. MR SHREYAS V COTHA,
S/O MR VINOD HAYAGRIV,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT "KRISHNA PRASAD",
1/34, ULSOOR ROAD,
W H HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560042.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI HITEESH GOWDA B J, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R7,
R1-D/W VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 26.06.2023)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:21973-DB
COMAP No. 229 of 2023
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W ORDER XL
OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO:
A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.06.2023
(ORDER PASSED IN IA 2 AND 4) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
BANGALORE (TRIAL COURT), IN COM OS.NO. 547/2023.
(ANNEXURE A) AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr K. N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants with Ms. Krutika Raghavan. Sri C K Nandakumar,
learned Senior Counsel for Sri Hiteesh Gowda B. J. for
respondents No.2 to 7. Service of notice on respondent No.1 is
dispensed with.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This appeal under Section 13(A) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 has been filed by the appellants against the
order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Commercial Court by
which the Commercial Court has interalia held that the dispute
between the parties is not a commercial dispute within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of The Commercial Courts Act,
2015. However, the Commercial Court has decided the
NC: 2023:KHC:21973-DB
COMAP No. 229 of 2023
application preferred by the parties for grant of injunction as
well as seeking vacation of the interim order of injunction on
merits.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants fairly
submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated
07.06.2023, appellants have already filed a suit viz.,
O.S. No.3558/2023 before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru.
The only contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the appellants is that since the Commercial Court had
already held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit, the
Commercial Court ought not to have decided the application for
grant of injunction as well as application seeking vacation of
the order of injunction on merits.
5. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the
appellants has not been fairly opposed by the learned Senior
Counsel for respondents. However, it is submitted that this
Court may clarify that the City Civil Court shall decide the suit
filed by the appellants without being influenced by any of the
observations made in the order which may be passed today.
NC: 2023:KHC:21973-DB
COMAP No. 229 of 2023
6. We have considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of both sides.
7. It is trite law that once the Court comes to the
conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute,
the Court should not deal with the interlocutory applications
filed by the parties. The impugned order dated 07.06.2023
passed by the Commercial Court only insofar as it rejecting the
application filed by the appellants seeking granting of injunction
and allowing the application filed by the respondents for
vacating the injunction is set-aside. Needless to state that life
of an interim order is co-terminus with the main proceeding.
Therefore, the earlier exparte order of injunction granted in
favour of the appellant does not survive.
8. However, it is clarified that the learned Judge of the
City Civil Court, Bengaluru shall try the suit O.S. No.3558/2023
and decide the suit as well as the interlocutory application
without being influenced by any of the observations contained
in this order.
NC: 2023:KHC:21973-DB
COMAP No. 229 of 2023
9. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BRN
