Karnataka High Court
Shri. Krishna D vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited on 30 May, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
COMAP No. 298 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. KRISHNA D
S/O DASAPPA
ABOUT 35 YEARS
2. SHRI MANJUNATHA D
S/O DASAPPA
ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
Digitally KASABA HOBLI
signed by ANEKAL TALUK
SUMATHY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
KANNAN
Location: ...APPELLANTS
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI - SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
PLOT NO.Y -10, BLOCK - E P
SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE CITY
KOLKATA 700091.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
COMAP No. 298 of 2023
2. TRANSUNION CIBIL LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CREDIT
INFORMATION BUREAU (INDIA) LIMITED)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
ONE INDIABULLS CENTRE
TOWER 2A, 19TH FLOOR
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG
ELPHINSTONE ROAD
MUMBAI 400013.
3. M/S M M ENTERPRISES
C/O SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
PLOT NO. Y-10, BLOCK-EP
SECTOR-V , SALT LAKE CITY
KOLKATA 700091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHRIDHAR R-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 3
SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S G - ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PINAZ MEHTA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 29/03/2022
PASSED IN COMM.O.S.NO.868/2021, BY HON'BLE X-ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA .J DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
COMAP No. 298 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred challenging the order that is
rendered by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru in Com.O.S.No.867/2021, dated 29.03.2022.
2. Heard Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned Senior Counsel
who represents Smt.Kavitha.D., learned counsel on record for
the Appellants and also heard Sri Shridhar R. learned counsel
for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri Prashanth Murthy S.G.
learned counsel who represents Sri Pinaz Mehta, learned
counsel for Respondent No.2.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submits that
the Appellants filed a suit for declaration in respect of a lease
agreement and for interpretation of the said document.
Learned Senior Counsel states that the said suit was filed
initially before the Court of Prl.Civil Judge, Anekal. Learned
Senior Counsel also submits that the office took objection
regarding the maintainability of the suit before Civil Court and
after hearing, the Civil Court passed an order dated 29.01.2021
stating that the dispute is commercial in nature. With the said
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
observation the plaint was ordered to be returned for
presentation before the Commercial Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel also states that on return of
plaint, the Appellants took the plaint and presented before the
jurisdictional Commercial Court i.e. the Court of Prl.District and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District. The said suit was
registered as Com.O.S.867/2021. Learned Senior Counsel also
contends that the Commercial Court after hearing the
interlocutory application filed in the said suit, on 29.03.2022
passed an order stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction
to try this suit as the dispute between the parties is not a
commercial dispute. Thereby the plaint was returned. Learned
Senior Counsel submits that the Civil Court states that it has no
jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute is commercial in
nature. However, the Commercial Court states the dispute is
not commercial dispute which observations are improper and
therefore, the present appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel Sri Sridhar R for respondent Nos.1
and 3 submits that Respondent No.1 is facing proceedings
before NCLT. He also states that liquidation proceedings have
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
been initiated. However, the pendency of liquidation
proceedings does not come in the way of Commercial Court to
disposing of the matter on merits.
6. Learned counsel Sri Prashanth Murthy S.G. for
Respondent No.2 submits that validity of the alleged lease
agreement is seriously in dispute and therefore, the
genuineness of the said lease agreement is required to be
decided. He also states that Respondent No.1 is the signatory
to the alleged lease agreement and therefore, it is for the
Respondent No.1 to state about the genuineness or otherwise
of alleged lease agreement.
7. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was enacted with an
intention to pave way for speedy disposal of high value
commercial disputes. A perusal of the contents of the said Act
reveals a clear mention as to what a "commercial dispute" is.
For the purpose of this case, reference to Section 2(c) (i) is
necessary. The said provision reads as under:
2 (c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute
arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers,
financiers and traders such as those relating to
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
mercantile documents, including enforcement and
interpretation of such documents;
8. By the aforementioned provision it is clear that
commercial disputes means dispute arising out of ordinary
transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders
which includes enforcement and interpretation of such
documents. In the case on hand as submitted by learned
Senior counsel for the Appellants which is not disputed by the
learned counsel who is representing Respondent No.2, the
entire issue revolves upon interpretation of the lease
agreement. By the aforesaid provision it is clear that the
genuineness of the said lease agreement has to be decided by
the Commercial Court as laid down under the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that
the case falls within the jurisdictional limits of Commercial
Court. Therefore, the Commercial Court i.e. the Court of
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District
ought not to have returned the plaint with an observation that
it has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:18430-DB
Consequently, the Commercial Court i.e. the Court of
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is
directed to restore the suit in Com.O.S.No.867/2021 on file and
to decide the matter on merits.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Learned counsel Sri Pinaz Mehta is permitted to file
vakalath for Respondent No.2 during the course of the day.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DKB
