Calcutta High Court
Baid Global Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Corporation Bank & Anr on 3 March, 2021
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
OD 55
ORDER SHEET
IA NO.GA/2/2021
In
CS/184/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
BAID GLOBAL FINANCE PVT. LTD. & ANR.
VERSUS
CORPORATION BANK & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 3rd March, 2021. (Via Video Conference) Appearance:
Mr. Ratul Das, Adv.
Mr. S.R. Kakrania, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Seni, Adv.
Mr. Aviroop Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Tanuj Kakrania, Adv.
...for the plaintiff Ms. Usha Doshi, Adv.
...for the defendant no.1 Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.
Ms. Ashika Daga, Adv.
...for the defendant no.2 The Court: By this application under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the plaintiffs seek transfer of CS/184/2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court to the Commercial Division.
Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs maintained a bank account with the original defendant no.1. The plaintiffs discovered transactions in the bank account maintained by the plaintiffs with the original 2 defendant no.1 which according to the plaintiffs, they did not authorised or did not undertake. The claims of the plaintiffs arise out of such banking transactions. Therefore, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs rely upon Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015 and contends that, the disputes between the parties are commercial in nature. He submits that the original defendant no.2 was arrayed as a party defendant since the plaintiffs received messages with regard to the banking transactions though such service provider.
The original defendant no.1 and the original defendant no.2 are represented. Learned advocate appearing for the original defendant no.1 submits that the name of the original defendant no.1 changed to Union Bank of India. She submits that there are issues of fraud involved, which ought not to be tried in the Commercial Division.
Learned advocate appearing for the defendant no.2 submits that the original defendant no.2 does not object to the transfer of the suit to the Commercial Division. However, the name of the original defendant no.2 is presently Vodafone Idea Ltd.
So far as the names of the original defendants are concerned, I find that, the plaintiffs have applied for amendment of the pleadings so as to depict the present names of the original defendants.
The instant suit is in excess of the presently prescribed specified value under the Act of 2015. The cause of action of the instant suit relate to banking transactions in the bank account that the plaintiffs maintained with the original defendant no.1 which is a bank.
Therefore, in my view, the disputes involved in the instant suit comes within the definition of a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015. Consequently, CS/184/2018 is transferred to the Commercial Division of this Hon'ble Court.3
Learned Advocate-on-Record for the plaintiffs is granted liberty to incorporate the words 'Commercial Division' in the pleadings immediately after the words ' Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction' and if necessary by deleting the words 'Original Side'.
So far as the balance prayers of amendment in the pleadings are concerned, since, the Court is transferring the suit to the Commercial Division, the plaintiffs are granted liberty to take out an application for amendment of the pleadings afresh on the selfsame cause of action in the Commercial Division.
IA No.GA/2/2021 in CS/184/2018 is disposed of accordingly.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) B.Pal