Orissa High Court
Shreedatt Dash vs M/S. Z. Estate Private Ltd. (Zepl) on 30 May, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.M.P No.1193 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
*******
Shreedatt Dash ... Petitioner
-versus-
M/s. Z. Estate Private Ltd. (ZEPL) ... Opposite Parties
and another
Advocate for the Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajjeet Roy, Advocate
For Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment: 30.05.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT
KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA, J.
1. This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.
2. Order dated 22nd July, 2021 (Annexure-1) passed by
learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in ARBP
No.2 of 2021 (appeal) and subsequent order dated 6th
September, 2022 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar
in the said appeal are under challenge in this CMP.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
3. By order under Annexure-1, learned District Judge
transferred ARBP No.2 of 2021 to the designated
Commercial Court, namely, Senior Civil Judge
(Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar (for brevity 'the
Commercial Court'). Order under Annexure-2 relates to
rejection of an application filed by the Petitioner assailing
the jurisdiction of the said Court to entertain the appeal.
4. This CMP finds its origin from Civil Suit No.1295 of 2020
filed by the Petitioner for declaration that the letters and e-
mails dated 12th August, 2020 issued by Defendants as
void and not binding on the Petitioner and also for a decree
of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from
creating any third party interest over the suit schedule
properties along with cost.
5. Since the issue involved in the CMP is a pure question of
law, detailed narration of fact is not necessary. Briefly
stated the parents of the Plaintiff during their lifetime had
entered into an agreement with Defendant No.1-Z Estate
Private Limited on 14th March, 2012 to purchase two
numbers of flats, i.e., Flat-702 at 7th floor of 8th tower and
Flat-1203 at 12th floor of the said 8th tower in Z-1 Housing
Project. Father of the Plaintiff/Petitioner, namely, Sreedhar
Dash died on 28th December, 2015 and his mother, namely,
Sobhamayee Dash had pre-deceased her husband on 9th
August, 2013 leaving behind the Petitioner and his
siblings, namely, Siddharth Dash (son) and two daughters,
namely, Smt. Shampashree Mund and Dr. Swatishree
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
Panda. After death of their parents, dissensions arose
between the Petitioner and his siblings in respect of their
immovable properties. Plaintiff/Petitioner claimed right
over the suit property by virtue of a Will for which Test
Case Nos.21 of 2017 and 22 of 2017 are pending in the
Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.
At this juncture, alleging non-payment of outstanding dues
in respect of the aforesaid two flats, the
Defendant/Opposite Party No.1 cancelled the agreement
executed by parents of the Petitioner, vide letter and e-mail
dated 12th August, 2020. Hence, the suit was filed for the
aforesaid relief. The Defendants/Opposite Parties on their
appearance filed an application on 6th January, 2021 under
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
brevity 'Arbitration Act') with a prayer to refer the parties
to arbitration. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Khurda rejected
such application vide order dated 18th February, 2021
(Annexure-5). Being aggrieved, the Defendants preferred
appeal in ARBP No.2 of 2021 under Section 37(1)(a) of
the Arbitration Act before learned District Judge, Khurda
at Bhubaneswar.
5.1 When the matter stood thus, learned District Judge, vide its
order dated 22nd July, 2021 (Annexure-1), transferred the
appeal to the Court learned Senior Civil Judge
(Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar, i.e., the Commercial
Court, for disposal in accordance with law. The case record
of ARBP No.2 of 2021 was received by the Commercial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
Court on 12th August, 2021. Subsequently, the Petitioner
filed an application before the Commercial Court on 16th
August, 2022 contending that the said Court lacks
jurisdiction to try the appeal and prayed for return of the
file to the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at
Bhubaneswar for its adjudication. Said application was
rejected vide order dated 6th September, 2022 (Annexure-
2), holding that such an application is not maintainable.
Hence, this CMP has been filed assailing the said orders
under Annexures-1 and 2.
6. Facts narrated above are not disputed by learned counsel
for the parties.
6.1 Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner, in
course of his argument, referred to several provisions of
the Arbitration Act and Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for
brevity 'CC Act'). It is his submission that Government of
Odisha in consultation with High Court of Orissa, vide its
notification dated 13th November, 2020, conferred the
jurisdiction and power of Commercial Court on the Court
of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in different districts.
Similarly, vide notification dated 11th January, 2021, State
Government designated District and Sessions Judges of
different districts as Commercial Appellate Courts for the
purpose of exercising jurisdiction and powers on those
Commercial Courts with effect from the date those
Commercial Courts became functional. High Court of
Orissa vide its memo dated 27th April, 2021 notified Senior
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar to be
functional with effect from 3rd May, 2021 and directed
transfer of the case records pertaining to commercial
disputes under the CC Act to the Commercial Court for its
smooth functions. The notification dated 13th November,
2020 was under challenge in the case of M/s M.G.
Mohanty and another Vs. State of Odisha and other batch
of cases, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Orissa 1070. In the
said case, the challenge was with regard to transferring of
cases pending before learned District and Sessions Judge,
Khurda at Bhubaneswar to the Senior Civil Judge
(Commercial Court). Holding the notification dated 13th
November, 2020 to be valid, this Court held that Senior
Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar has
jurisdiction to try the commercial disputes. Relying upon
Gaurang Mangesh Suctancar Vs. Sonia Gaurang
Mangesh Suctancar, reported in MANU/MH/2578/2020,
this Court also held that if there is any conflict between the
two Acts, Arbitration Act would prevail as regards
substantial provision and CC Act shall cover the
procedural niceties. View taken in the case of M/s M.G.
Mohanty (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jaycee Housing Private
Limited and others Vs. Registrar (General), Orissa High
Court, Cuttack and others, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 549.
It is his submission that in all these aforesaid case laws, the
jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to adjudicate
applications under Sections 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
Act was in question. The instant case is a departure in the
sense that an appeal pending in the Court of learned
District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar was being
transferred to the Commercial Court. In the case of Jaycee
Housing Private Limited (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while upholding the notification dated 13th November,
2020, observed as under:-
"26. Therefore, considering the aforestated
provisions of the 2015 Act and the Objects and Reasons
for which the 2015 Act has been enacted and the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts are
established for speedy disposal of the commercial
disputes including the arbitration disputes, Sections 3
& 10 of the 2015 Act shall prevail and all applications
or appeals arising out of arbitration under the
provisions of the 1996 Act, other than international
commercial arbitration, shall be filed in and heard and
disposed of by the Commercial Courts, exercising the
territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such
Commercial Courts have been constituted.
27. If the submission on behalf of the appellants
that all applications/appeals arising out of arbitration
under the provisions of the 1996 Act, other than the
international commercial arbitration, shall lie before
the Principal Civil Court of a district, in that case, not
only the Objects and Reasons of enactment of the 2015
Act and establishment of Commercial Courts shall be
frustrated, even Sections 3, 10 & 15 shall become
otiose and nugatory.
28. If the submission on behalf of the appellants is
accepted, in that case, though with respect to other
commercial disputes, the applications or appeals shall
lie before the Commercial Courts established and
constituted under Section 3 of the 2015 Act, with
respect to arbitration proceedings, the applications or
appeals shall lie before the Principal Civil Court of a
district. There cannot be two fora with respect to
different commercial disputes."
(underlined for emphasis)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
6.2 In view of the above, the Court of learned District Judge,
Khurda being the designated Commercial Appellate Court
by the State Government in exercise of its power under
Section 3A of the CC Act should hear appeals in terms of
Section 13 of the said Act. He further submitted that the
applications and 'appeals' finds place under Section 10(3)
of the CC Act would not include an appeal under Section
37 (1)(a) of the Arbitration Act challenging an order
refusing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration
Act. The appeal of present nature was not the subject
matter of disputes in the above referred case laws.
Although Section 10(3) of the CC Act provides that all
applications and appeals arising out of an arbitration, other
than international commercial arbitration, shall be filed and
disposed of by a Commercial Court exercising territorial
jurisdiction over such arbitration, the same by no stretch of
imagination include the appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act, more particularly an appeal under Section
37 (1)(a) of the said Act. It is his submission that Section
37 of the Arbitration Act has been divided into two parts.
Section 37(1) deals with an appeal against orders under
three contingencies, viz., firstly against an order refusing to
refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the said Act;
secondly against an order granting or refusing to grant any
measure under Section 9 and thirdly against an order
setting aside order refusing to set aside an arbitral award
under Section 34 of the said Act. Commercial Courts being
conferred with jurisdiction of hearing an application under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
Sections 9, 14, 29(A) and 34 of the Arbitration Act, an
appeal against said order would lie to the District Judge
being designated as Commercial Appellate Court by the
State Government. Similarly, an order rejecting an
application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act by the
Commercial Court could be challenged under Section 37
(1)(a) of Arbitration Act read with Section 13 of the CC
Act before the Principal Civil Court, or a designated
Commercial Appellate Court. Section 10 of the CC Act
does not include an appeal of the present nature. Therefore,
the substantive right of appeal as envisaged under Section
37(1) of the Arbitration Act read with Section 13 of the CC
Act cannot be abridged and hearing of the appeal filed by
the Opposite Party by a Commercial Court would be
inconsistent with the legislative mandate. When the
District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has been
designated as Commercial Appellate Court by the State
Government in consultation with the High Court of Orissa,
there was no reason to transfer the appeal under Section 37
(1) (a) of the Arbitration Act to the Commercial Court.
6.3 He also relied upon the case law in the case of M/s Beta
Exim Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Central Rail side
Warehouse Co. Ltd., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 1392,
wherein Kerala High Court, while dealing with an order
passed by the District Judge in transferring the Execution
Case to the Commercial Court, held that the execution
petition cannot be included within the ambit of word
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
'application' under Section 15 of the CC Act. Further, the
appeal has been valued at Rs.55,000/-. As such, the
valuation being less than Rs.3.00 lakh, the subject matter
cannot be a commercial dispute under Section 2(1) (i) of
the CC Act. Learned District Judge, without considering
all these legal aspects, transferred the appeal to the
Commercial Court and in turn, the Commercial Court
without applying its mind, rejected the petition vide order
under Annexure-2 by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
Hence, the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 are
not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.
7. Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite
Party No.1 submitted that the argument advanced by
Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Petitioner is contrary to
the principles of law. It is his submission that in view of
the clear and unambiguous language of Section 10 (1) of
the CC Act, the Commercial Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal transferred to it by learned District
Judge, Khurda under Annexure-1. He further submitted
that law has already been elaborately discussed in the case
of M/s M.G. Mohanty (supra) and Jaycee Housing
Private Limited (supra). Thus, there can be no iota of
doubt or confusion with regard to maintainability of the
appeal (ARBP No.2 of 2021) in the Commercial Court. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the CMP.
8. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.
Perused the materials on record placed before me. Also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
gone through the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act
and CC Act and the case laws cited. Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act deals with 'appealable orders'. By virtue
of Amendment Act, 2015 Clause (a) to Sub-section (1) of
Section 37 was substituted by incorporating order refusing
to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the said
Act as an appealable order. Thus, an appeal lies against an
order refusing to refer to the parties to arbitration under
Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the Opposite
Parties filed appeal (ARBP No.2 of 2021) in the Court of
learned District Judge. By virtue of notification dated 13th
November, 2020, Government of Odisha established four
numbers of Courts of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at
different places mentioned in the said notification and
designated the same to be Commercial Courts. One such
Court has been established at Bhubaneswar in the
judgeship of Khurda and designated as Senior Civil Judge
(Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar. The said Court was
made functional with effect from 3rd May, 2021. Pursuant
to direction of this Court, the records pertaining to
commercial disputes under the CC Act in the judgeship of
Khurda were transferred to the Commercial Court.
Accordingly, the case record in ARBP No.2 of 2021
pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at
Bhubaneswar was transferred to the Commercial Court
vide District Court's order No. 146/2021 dated 19th July,
2021. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application
challenging the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
entertain the appeal (ARBP No.2 of 2021) and prayed for
returning the case record to the Court of District and
Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.
9. Contention of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Petitioner
was that Section 10 of the CC Act does not include an
appeal under Section 37 (1)(a) of the Arbitration Act. It was
submitted that in view of Section 13 of the CC Act, the
appeal should have been entertained and adjudicated by
learned District and Sessions Judge, Khurda at
Bhubaneswar, which has been designated as Commercial
Appellate Court within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(a) of
CC Act. It is more so in view of the provision under Section
15 (2) of the CC Act, which deals with transfer of pending
cases. Section 15 (2) of the CC Act reads as under:-
"15. Transfer of pending cases;
(1) xx xx xx
(2) All suits and applications, including applications
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of
1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified
Value pending in any civil court in any district or area
in respect of which a Commercial Court has been
constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial
Court:
Provided that no suit or application where the final
judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the
constitution of the Commercial Division or the
Commercial Court shall be transferred either under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)."
Section 10 of the CC Act deals with jurisdiction of a
Commercial Court in respect of arbitration matters. Sub-
section (3) of Section 10 provides as under:-
"10. Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
Where the subject-matter of an arbitration is a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value and--
(1) xx xx xx
(2) xx xx xx
(3) If such arbitration is other than an international
commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals
arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
that would ordinarily lie before any principal civil
court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a
High Court) shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of
by the Commercial Court exercising territorial
jurisdiction over such arbitration where such
Commercial Court has been constituted."
A close reading of Sub-section (3) as above, would make it
clear that all applications or appeals (other than the
international commercial arbitration) arising out of
arbitration in a commercial dispute of a specified value,
which would ordinarily lie before principal Civil Court of
the original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High
Court), shall be filed in and heard and disposed of by
Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over
such arbitration where such Commercial Courts have been
established. It thus makes clear that after establishment of
Commercial Court, appeal under Section 37 (1)(a) of
Arbitration Act arising out of an arbitration shall be filed
before the Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction
over such arbitration. As the instant appeal was filed before
establishment of the Commercial Court, Principal Civil
Court, namely, District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar was
competent to entertain the same. After establishment of the
Commercial Courts, the Court of learned District Judge,
Khurda lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
more particularly in view of the provision of Section 10 of
the CC Act. Although Section 15 of the CC Act does not
specifically spell out transfer of appeals, but a harmonious
reading of Sections 10 and 15 of the CC Act makes it
abundantly clear that an appeal pending in the Court of
Principal Civil Court of the District shall also be
transferred to the Commercial Court having territorial
jurisdiction over it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.
Shanti Mishra, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 840 held that a
procedural law has retrospective application. Although
right of the parties to litigation to an appeal/revision/review
etc. gets crystallized on the date of launching of the
litigation, but the party does not have any vested right with
regard to the forum as provided in the statute under which
parties are litigating, as it is procedural in nature. In the
instant case, the Opposite Parties have a right of appeal
under Section 37 (1)(a) of the Arbitration Act against an
order refusing the prayer under Section 8 of the said Act.
But neither of the parties have a choice of forum of appeal.
Since the procedural law operates retrospectively the
person aggrieved has to go to the new forum even if its
cause of action or right of action arose prior to change of
forum. In the case of Gaurang Mangesh Suctancar
(supra), Bombay High Court held as under:-
"92. Evidently, the Commercial Courts Act is a later
enactment, but it does not work at cross purpose with
the Arbitration Act. In fact, both aim at speedy adjudication.
The Commercial Courts Act covers all the commercial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
disputes, whereas the Arbitration Act covers only those
disputes that involve arbitration. As Kandla Export
Corporation has held, both the enactments call for a
harmonious interpretation. If at all there is any conflict, as
to the substantive provisions, the Arbitration Act prevails;
but it has left the procedural niceties to the Commercial
Courts Act."
(underlined for emphasis)
Considering the above, this Court in M/s M.G. Mohanty
(supra) at para-50, held as under:-
"50. The Court finds merit in the contention on behalf of the
Opposite Parties that the A&C Act must yield to the CC Act
and not vice versa given that the objective of both
enactments is the speedy disposal of the cases and the CC
Act was a later enactment. There is no apparent conflict
between the A&C Act and the CC Act for being resolved.
The objective of both is the speedy resolution of the disputes.
As far as challenge to the vires of Section 10 of the CC Act is
concerned, indeed no ground has been made out before this
Court to show how Section 10 of the CC Act is ultra vires the
legislative powers of the Parliament or how it is 'manifestly
arbitrary'. The identification of commercial disputes as
distinct from ordinary civil disputes is based on an
intelligible differentia and subjecting them to a special
expedited procedure can neither be considered to be
arbitrary nor ultra vires the A&C Act. That prayer,
therefore, has to be rejected."
It has been further made clear in the case of Jaycee
Housing Private Limited (supra) in which, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after discussing different provisions of the
CC Act, more particularly Sections 3, 10, 15 and 21
together with Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act
including 253rd report of the Law Commission held that
Sections 3 and 10 of the CC Act, 2015 shall prevail and all
'applications or appeals' arising out of arbitration under
the provisions of the Arbitration Act (other than
international commercial arbitration), shall be filed in and
heard and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial
Courts have been established. It is further held that if two
fora in respect of different commercial disputes would be
allowed to prevail, it would frustrate the object and
purpose of enactment of the CC Act. Law Commission in
its 253rd report made the following recommendation qua
arbitration matters involving commercial disputes.
"3.24.4 Second, in the case of domestic arbitrations
concerning a commercial dispute of more than Rupees One
Crore, applications or appeals may lie either to the High
Court or a Civil Court (not being a High Court) depending
upon the pecuniary jurisdiction. It is recommended that all
applications or appeals arising out of such arbitrations
under the A& C Act, that have been filed on the original side
of the High Court shall be heard by the Commercial
Division of the High Court where such Commercial Division
is constituted in the High Court. However, in the absence of
a Commercial Division being constituted, the regular Bench
of the High Court will hear such applications or appeals
arising out of domestic arbitration. If the application or
appeal in such domestic arbitration is not within the
jurisdiction of the High Court and would ordinarily lie
before a Civil Court (not being a High Court) and there is a
Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction in
respect of such arbitration, then such application or appeal
shall be filed in and heard by such Commercial Court."
Thus, the procedure provided under the CC Act shall
undisputedly prevail over the Arbitration Act. Resultantly,
applications or appeals filed under the Arbitration Act
including an appeal under Section 37 (1)(a) of the
Arbitration Act filed before commencement of CC Act
shall stand transferred and be entertained and adjudicated
by the designated Commercial Court having jurisdiction
over the arbitration in which the Commercial Court has
been established. The case law in the case of M/s Beta
Exim Logistics (P) Ltd.(supra) has no application to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
case at hand as it deals with an execution proceeding and
hence is of no assistance to the case of the Petitioner.
10. A further argument was advanced by Mr. Roy, learned
counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that when the suit
has been valued at Rs.55,000/- and the valuation being less
than Rs.3.00 lakh, i.e., the 'Specified Value' as envisaged
under Section 2(1)(i) of the CC Act, it cannot be treated to
be a commercial dispute to be adjudicated under the CC
Act. Such an argument has no substance, as Section 2(1)(i)
deals with a commercial dispute in respect of a suit as
determined in accordance with Section 12 of the CC Act.
Section 12 (1)(c) read with 12 (2) of the CC Act, which
read thus:-
"12. Determination of Specified Value-
(1) The Specified Value of the subject-matter of the
commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application
shall be determined in the following manner:--
(a) xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx
(c) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or
application relates to immovable property or to a right
therein, the market value of the immovable property, as
on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or application,
as the case may be, shall be taken into account for
determining Specified Value; [and]
(d) xx xx xx
(2) The aggregate value of the claim and counterclaim,
if any as set out in the statement of claim and the
counterclaim, if any, in an arbitration of a commercial
dispute shall be the basis for determining whether such
arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction of a
Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division
or Commercial Court, as the case may be.
(3) xx xx xx "
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-May-2023 17:50:23
10.1. The Plaintiff-Petitioner at para- 8 of the plaint has stated
that his parents had paid the full consideration of
Rs.77,64,730/- of 'A' schedule property and Rs.60,37,932/-
of 'B' schedule property. Thus, the market value of the suit
schedule property, as stated by the Petitioner, was well
above Rs.3.00 lakh.
10.2. Commercial Court has the jurisdiction to entertain all
arbitration proceedings involving commercial dispute of
Specified Value, as provided under Section 10 (2) of the CC
Act. It is more so, in view of the ratio decided in the case of
Jaycee Housing Private Limited (supra) and M/s M.G.
Mohanty (supra). Hence, the submission of Mr. Roy,
learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the
subject matter of the case is not a commercial dispute of
specified value is also not sustainable.
11. Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands
dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances, there shall be
no order as to costs.
Issue urgent certified copy of the judgment on proper
application.
(KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA)
JUDGE
s.s.satapthy High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 30th May, 2023
