Karnataka High Court
Sammaan Capital Limited vs Mantri Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 24 March, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 49 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIABULLS
HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR,
BUILDING NO. 27, KG MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110001
AND ALSO HAVING AN OFFICE AT
PLOT NO. 87/6, GROUND MEZZANINE,
INDIABULLS HOUSE, RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560025
REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS. USHA M.
2. SAMMAAN FINSERVE LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIABULLS
COMMERCIAL CREDIT LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
5TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 27, KG MARG,
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110001
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS. USHA M.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADGI., SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANTRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
-2-
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT C-5, RICH HOMES, NO. 5/1,
RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU 560025.
2. MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT C-5, RICH HOMES, NO. 5/1,
RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU 560025.
3. SHORE DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT C-5, RICH HOMES, NO. 5/1,
RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU 560025.
4. AGARA TECHZONE PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT MANTRI HOUSE, NO. 41,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
5. MINERVA INFRATECH PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT MANTRI HOUSE, NO. 41,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
6. MANTRI REAL STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTRI
RESI STRUCTURES PVT.LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT MANTRI HOUSE, NO. 41,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
-3-
7. CASTLES VISTA PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT C-5,
RICH HOMES, NO. 5/1, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU 560025.
8. PLAZA AGENCIES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT MANTRI HOUSE, NO. 41,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
9. SUSHIL MANTRI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT MANTRI HOUSE,
NO. 41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
10 . CATALYST TRUSTEESHIP LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT GDA HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR,
PLOT NO. 85, S. NO. 94 AND 95,
BHUSARI COLONY (RIGHT) KOTHRUD,
PUNE 411038
11 . ERIDANI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT E-903,
TOWER E LOTUS HOMEZ, SECTOR 111,
PALAM VIHAR, HARYANA - 122017
12 . ASLEEK BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L-62/1,
L-BLOCK, SECOND FLOOR,
NEW DELHI 110001
-4-
13 . AUROKIRAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT
ADVISORS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT L-62/1, L-BLOCK, SECOND FLOOR,
NEW DELHI - 110001
14 . DEUTSCHE BANK AG
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT DEUTSCHE BANK HOUSE,
HAZARIMAL SOMANI MARG, FORT,
MUMBAI 400001
15 . NILESH SABOO
SENIOR EXECUTIVE AT DEUTSCHE
BANK, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT DEUTSCHE BANK HOUSE,
HAZARIMAL SOMANI MARG, FORT,
MUMBAI 400001
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. B.K.S. SANJAY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 IN
OS.NO.7166/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 (2) OF CPC, FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the impugned
order dated 25.11.2024, in O.S.No.7166/2024, whereby
the application filed by the defendants under Order VII
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Prabhuling K.
Navadgi, appearing for the defendants submitted that the
plaintiff No.2 - Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., plaintiff No.1 -
Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., plaintiff No.3 - Shore
Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., plaintiff No.4 - Mantri Techzone Pvt.
Ltd., and plaintiff No.5 - Minerva Infratech Pvt. Ltd., have
availed various loans from the defendants, who are non
banking finance companies. On default, in repayment of
the loans, defendant No.1 issued a detailed acceleration
notice dated 25.03.2022 to plaintiff No.1 and thereafter
defendant No.1 invoked the pledge agreement by
invocation notice dated 28.09.2024 and sought for
transfer of the shares vide sale notice dated 28.09.2024.
The 1st plaintiff filed a commercial suit in
Com.O.S.No.1351/2024, before the Commercial Court,
Bengaluru, seeking permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from enforcing or acting upon the invocation
notices dated 28.09.2024 and from undertaking any
further proceedings related to the transfer or encumbrance
of the pledged shares of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 herein.
However, the plaintiffs therein filed a memo dated
01.10.2024 seeking to withdraw the suit as not pressed,
while seeking liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause
of action. However, instead of filing a fresh suit before the
commercial court, the plaintiffs filed a suit in
O.S.No.7166/2024 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru
with similar prayers as was sought before the commercial
court.
4. The defendants entered appearance in the suit
before the City Civil Court and filed an interlocutory
application No.8/2024 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure seeking a prayer to return the plaint to
the plaintiffs on the ground that the City Civil Court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the suit, since the subject matter of
the suit was evidently a commercial dispute and therefore
such a suit could be tried only by the Commercial Court.
However, the learned City Civil Judge has passed the
impugned order rejecting the application.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
learned City Civil Judge has accepted the contentions of
the plaintiffs that the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court
was not attracted, as notice has been issued by the
defendants only to plaintiffs No.1 and 2 but the suit has
been filed by nine (9) entities and therefore if some of the
plaintiffs do not have a commercial transaction with the
defendants, then such a suit is maintainable before the
jurisdictional civil court. For that purpose, the trial court
seems to have placed reliance on a decision of the Apex
Court in the case of M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
/vs./ Millenium Telecom Ltd., in Civil Appeal
No.5860/2010 and another case in M/s.Kvalrner
Cemintation India Ltd., /vs./ M/s.Achil Builders Pvt.
Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.6074/2018. However, the
learned Senior Counsel submits that on careful search, it is
found that no such decision is rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits with
circumspection that the learned judge seems to have cited
a non-existent decision to back the impugned judgment.
6. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit
that when the plaintiffs sought to withdraw the commercial
suit, it was not stated that the suit is not maintainable
before the Commercial Court. Liberty was not sought to
approach the jurisdictional civil court. It is also submitted
that in a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held
that the court, if on a meaningful, not formal reading of
the plaint, finds that the averments are manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sence of not disclosing a
clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under Order
VI Rule 11 of CPC, taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. And if by clever drafting the
plaintiff has created an illusion of a cause of action, nip it
in the bud at the first hearing, by examining the party
searchingly under Order X of CPC. It was held that an
activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Shyam
Sundar, appearing for the plaintiffs submitted, at the
threshold that the two decisions cited in the impugned
order did not come from the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
sought to place reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High
Court in Ladymoon Towers PVt. Ltd., /vs./ Mahendra
Investments Advisors Pvt. Ltd., arising out of
CS/99/2020 in I.A.No.GA/4/2021 dated 13.08.2021, to
contend that there should be an unimpeachable
commercial flavour to the transaction resulting in a
dispute, if the suit is to be maintained before a
Commercial Court. It was contended that in the plaint,
the plaintiffs have clearly contended that the e-mail
notices sent by the defendants are designed to surprise
and catch the plaintiff offguard. It is contended that the
- 10 -
defendants are attempting to circumvent established legal
procedure by issuing notices without adhering to due
process of law.
8. However, when a pointed question was put to
the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, as to why the
commercial suit was withdrawn, without seeking liberty to
approach the jurisdictional civil court, the learned Senior
Counsel has no answer. The learned Senior Counsel
however sought to support the impugned order, while
contending that notices were admittedly issued only to
plaintiffs No.1 and 2, but the suit has been filed at the
hands of nine entities and there being no commercial
transaction at the hands of the defendants with some of
the plaintiffs, a regular suit before a civil court is
maintainable.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
application filed by the defendants to return the plaint,
should have been allowed, for more than one reason.
Firstly, the plaintiffs who had earlier filed a Commercial
Suit, did not seek leave of the Court while withdrawing the
- 11 -
same, to present the suit before the civil court. Secondly,
the plaintiffs are admittedly aggrieved of the demand
notices issued by the defendants and such demand notices
were issued only to some of the plaintiffs. Therefore, only
those plaintiffs to whom demand notices were issued are
aggrieved and they are entitled to seek relief at the hands
of the competent court. Such of the plaintiffs could not
have included some other entities to whom the defendants
had not issued notices, to seek redressal of their
grievance. On the other hand, if the defendants herein had
approached the court and if they had filed the suit against
entities to whom demand notices were not issued, then,
such of the entities, as defendants, could have raised such
a plea, regarding maintainability of the suit. It is
unacceptable that the entities who had earlier filed a
Commercial Suit, would withdraw the suit, without liberty
and thereafter filed a suit before the civil court impleading
some other entities to whom admittedly notices were not
issued by the defendants. This is an ingenious method
adopted by the plaintiffs seeking to maintain a suit before
a court which had no jurisdiction.
- 12 -
10. What is more disturbing is the fact that the
learned judge of City Civil Court has cited two decisions
which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other
Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not
cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on
the part of the learned judge would require further probe
and appropriate action in accordance with law.
11. Consequently, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. The interlocutory application filed by the
defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is allowed. However, having regard to the
express provisions contained in Rule 10A of Order VII, the
matter stands remitted to the learned 9th Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, only to enable the
plaintiffs to file an application in terms of clause(2) of Rule
10A of Order VII. For that purpose, the parties herein are
directed to appear before the learned 9th Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on 02.04.2025, without
further notice. If an application is accordingly filed by the
- 13 -
plaintiffs, the learned judge shall pass necessary orders in
accordance with Rule 10A of Order VII. If no such
application is filed by the plaintiffs on the said date, the
plaint shall stand returned to the plaintiffs.
12. Copy of this order shall be placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for further action against the
learned judge.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
