Madhya Pradesh High Court
Peoples International And Services ... vs Alliance Industries Ltd on 7 October, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50446
1 MP-4986-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4986 of 2025
PEOPLES INTERNATIONAL AND SERVICES PVT. LTD
Versus
ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD
Appearance:
Shri Amalpushp Shroti and Shri Amit Kumar Sthapak - Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Agrawal and Shri
Bhasker Pandey - Advocates for respondent.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 4989 of 2025
PEOPLE GENERAL HOSPITA PVT. LTD
Versus
ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD
Appearance:
Shri Amalpushp Shroti and Shri Amit Kumar Sthapak - Advocates for
petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Agrawal and Shri
Bhasker Pandey - Advocates for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. These petitions impugns orders both dated 26.08.2025, whereby
the applications filed by the respective petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10
of the code of civil procedure has been dismissed holding that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50446
2 MP-4986-2025
subject dispute is a commercial dispute and the plaint is not liable to be
returned to be presented before a Non-Commercial Court.
2. These cases have a very chequered history. Petitioners are private
limited companies of the same group and had filed three Suits in the
year 2012 at the time when the Commercial Court Act had not been
enacted. On the enactment of the Commercial Court Act these three
Suits were transferred to the Commercial Court on the ground that the
dispute was a commercial dispute. These two Suits which are subject
matter of these two petitions were dismissed in default however, the
third Suit continued. An objection was raised by respondent/defendant
therein that the dispute in the subject Suit was not a commercial
dispute and as such could not be tried by a Commercial Court. During
the pendency of the application by an administrative order by this Court
and the Suit was transferred to an ordinary Civil Court. Subsequently
by judgment dated 20.12.2022 the third Suit was dismissed by the Civil
Court against which an appeal has been filed in the year 2023, which is
pending consideration before this Court.
3. In the Suits which were dismissed for non prosecution,
petitioners filed application for restoration which was rejected by the
then Commercial Court. Appeal against the rejection order was
preferred before the Division Bench of the Court. The Appeals were
allowed and the Suits were restored. However, instead of the Suits
being restored on the record of the Commercial Court the Suits were
restored on the record of the Civil Court. Appellant filed an application
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50446
3 MP-4986-2025
before the Civil Court for transfer of the Suits to the Commercial Court
on the ground that the underlying dispute was a commercial dispute and
hence the Suits were liable to be transferred to and tried by a
Commercial Court. The Suits were thus transferred to the Commercial
Court.
4. Thereafter the Suits continued before the Commercial Court and
evidence of the parties have been recorded and now the Suits are at the
stage of final arguments. At the stage of final arguments, subject
application under Order 7 Rule 10 has been filed by the petitioner
contending that the Suits should be transferred to an ordinary Civil
Court for the reason that the underlying dispute is not a commercial
dispute.
5. We note that petitioner is trying to blow hot and cold and take a
stand contrary to the stand earlier taken. Earlier, on enactment of the
Commercial Court Act, the Suits were transferred from the Civil Court
to the Commercial Court. No objection was raised by the petitioner at
that point of time that the Suits could not be tried by a Commercial
Court or that the underlying dispute was not a commercial dispute.
Subsequently, when the Suits were restored and on account of an
administrative error were restored on the record of the Civil Court and
not the Commercial Court, Petitioner itself moved an application
seeking transfer of the Suits to the Commercial Court on the ground
that the underlying dispute was a commercial dispute and as such
triable by a Commercial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50446
4 MP-4986-2025
6. Once, the Suits were transferred to the Commercial
Court, substantial progress has been made in the Suits inasmuch as
evidence of the parties was recorded and concluded. Now when the
Suits have reached the stage of final arguments, petitioner has come up
with the application that the Suits are not triable by the Commercial
Court and is thus liable to be transferred to the ordinary Civil Court.
Such a contradictory stand, on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be
permitted. Once the petitioner has categorically stated that the
underlying dispute is a commercial dispute arising out of commercial
transaction between the parties and itself got the Suits transferred to the
Commercial Court, petitioner now cannot be permitted to seek return of
the plaint to be presented afresh before an ordinary Civil Court. We
note that the Suits were filed in the year 2012 and 13 years have been
passed and are still pending.
7. We may further note that the dispute pertains to a transaction
between two companies and as per the plaint, respondent had agreed to
invest in the petitioner by purchase of its equity. Respondent is the
shareholder and had participated in acquisition of the equity share
capital of the petitioner and even as per the plaint there is a reference to
an understanding between defendant company and the plaintiff
company i.e. shareholders of the plaintiff company that further amount
shall be invested in the petitioner company and the allegation is that
since the investment was not made and the respondent did not make
true and full disclosure, subject Suits have been filed claiming
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50446
5 MP-4986-2025
damages. We are of the view that the underlying dispute does have a
commercial flavour and even otherwise petitioner has repeatedly taken
a stand that the dispute is a commercial dispute and thus liable to be
tried by a Commercial Court.
8. We may also note that the commercial Judge in the instant case is
of the rank of an Additional District Judge who is entitled to try and
adjudicate a civil dispute. In case, the Suits were to be transferred to an
ordinary Civil Court, same would also be liable to be transferred to a
Court of an Additional District Judge. An Additional District Judge
who is designated as commercial Court has the power to try an ordinary
Civil Suit however vice versa may not be true. So no prejudice would in
any event be caused to the Petitioner if teh Suits continue before the
Commercial Court. Further, learned senior counsel for the Respondent
submits that they have not taken any objection of jurisdiction before the
Commercial Court and do not contend that the Suits are liable to be
transferred.
9. In the instant case, keeping in view the fact that the suit has been
pending for over 13 years and petitioner has also repeatedly taken a
stand that the dispute is a commercial dispute, we find no ground to
interfere with the impugned order whereby the Commercial Court has
dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 filed by the petitioner
seeking return of the plaint. We are informed that the suit is at the stage
of final arguments and the arguments are underway.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitions and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50446
6 MP-4986-2025
petitions are accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to
expeditiously conclude the proceedings and render a judgment as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months
from today.
11. Certified copy today.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VPA
