Karnataka High Court
Bank Of India vs Sri. Mahalingappa S/O. Laxman B Patil on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
RFA No. 100394 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100394 OF 2023 (MON-)
BETWEEN:
BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF
UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 AND
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE,
C-5, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051
HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT RAGHAVENDRA
TALKIES ROAD, NO.2, NEAR MAIN BUS STAND
MUDHOL-587313 HEREIN REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR K
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O.MUDHOL
TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
AND:
1. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA
S/O. LAXMAN B. PATIL,
Location:
HIGH
AGE. 41 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OCC. CONTRACTOR,
R/O. NAGARAL,
TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT,
KARNATAKA,
PIN CODE-587313.
2. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
RAITARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT
RANNAANGAR, TIMMAPUR,
TQ.MUDHOL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
RFA No. 100394 of 2023
DIST. BAGALAKOT
PIN CODE - 587122.
3. SRI. RAMAPPA SIDDAPPA TALEWAD,
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
CHAIRMAN, RAITARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE
KARKHANE NIYAMIT (RSSKN) MUDHOL
TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT
PIN CODE. 587313.
4. SRI. RAMESH S/O. APPASAB TUNGAL
AGE. 56 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GULGAL JAMBAGI,
TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT
PIN CODE. 587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2023
PASSED IN O.S.NO. 491/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL AT
MUDHOL AND TO ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
RFA No. 100394 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and
respondents.
2. This appeal is filed against the order in
O.S.No.491/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Mudhol, rejecting the plaint.
3. The suit is filed by the appellant-Bank to recover
the loan amount alleged to have been lent to defendant No.1
and it is further stated that the rest of the defendants are
the guarantors to the said loan.
4. The contesting defendant filed application under
Order VII Rule (11)(a) and Rule (11)(d) contending that
there is no cause of action to file a suit and the suit is barred
in view of the bar contended on the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 (for short 'Act of 2015').
5. The Trial Court accepted the contention that the
dispute raised before it is a 'commercial dispute' within the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. The Court
also held that there is no cause of action to file a suit and
accordingly, rejected the plaint.
6. Aggrieved by the Order rejecting the plaint, the
plaintiff is in appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would contend that in the view of the finding by the Trial
Court that the dispute is a 'commercial dispute' within the
definition of 'commercial dispute' as defined in Section
2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015, the Court could not have decided
the contention relating to cause of action as it has no
jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
jointly submit that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the
suit as the dispute raised squarely fell within the definition of
'commercial dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act
of 2015.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
9. This Court has perused the plaint as well as
definition of the expression 'commercial dispute' as defined
in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015.
10. On going through the definition and the
contentions raised in the plaint it is very much evident that
the dispute raised suit falls within the definition of
'commercial dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(c)(i).
11. Thus, the Trial Court justified in holding that it
has no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the Trial Court
committed an error in holding that there is "no cause of
action" after having held that it has no jurisdiction to try the
suit. Since, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the
further enquiry relating to cause of action could not have
been made. The trial Court ought to have returned the plaint
for presentation before the proper Court. To the said extent
the order of Trial Court has to be set aside.
12. It is also noticed that the suit would lie before the
commercial Court and format of the plaint to be presented
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
before the Commercial Court is very way different from what
is presented in the regular suits before the Civil Courts.
13. Hence, the on return of the plaint, the plaintiff is
at liberty to present the newly drafted plaint as required
under the Commercial Courts Act before the Commercial
Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and the same shall be
accompanied by the plaint to be returned by the Trial Court.
14. The impugned order is set aside to the above said
extent, and the plaintiff is permitted to file a fresh plaint
before the commercial Court in the format prescribed. The
trial Court shall return the plaint to the plaintiff.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on
the judgment of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
V/s Modern Construction and Company1 and referring to
the said judgment would urge that the Court be paid in the
suit be ordered to be adjusted to the Court fee payable in
Commercial suit.
(2014) 1 SCC 648
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
16. The Court fee paid in the original suit shall be
adjusted in the commercial suit in case filed by the plaintiff.
17. It is also noticed that the remand of the matter is
necessitated owing to the erroneous order of the Trial Court.
Hence, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to refund of Court
fee paid in this appeal.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in-part.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree are set
aside in-part. The finding on jurisdiction of the
Court is upheld.
iii. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with a
direction to return the plaint to the plaintiff to
enable the plaintiff to file before the suit
jurisdictional Commercial Court.
iv. The appellant is entitled to refund of the Court
fee paid before this Court.
v. It is also directed that the Court fee paid before
the Trial Court shall be adjusted towards the
Court fee payable by the plaintiff/appellant, in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16176
case the Commercial suit is filed before the
Commercial Court.
vi. It is also made clear that since, the format of
the Commercial Court suit is different from the
suit in the Civil Court, the plaintiff-appellant is
permitted to make file a separate plaint to bring
it in compliance with the requirement in the
Commercial Courts Act and said plaint shall be
accompanied by the plaint filed before the
Senior Civil Court.
vii. In case, the suit is filed within 15 days from the
date of return of the plaint, it shall be deemed
that the suit is filed on the date when the suit
was originally filed before the Civil Court.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
CT:ANB
