Delhi District Court
The Nainital Bank Limited vs Sh. Narender Kumar S/O Sh. Suresh Kumar on 21 December, 2020
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 81/2019.
The Nainital Bank Limited,
A company incorporated under Companies Act 1956,
Having its registered office at G.B.Pant Road, Nainital (Uttrakhand)
and having its branch office at
C-16, Dilshad Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
......................................................................................Plaintiff.
versus
1. Sh. Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o 7-B, Second Floor, Near Shri Guru Singh Sabha,
Sector 1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
Also at Flat No.663, Plot No.201,
Shalimar Garden Extension-1, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Smt. Parima W/o Sh. Narender Kumar,
R/o 7-B, Second Floor, Near Shri Guru Singh Sabha,
Sector 1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
Also at Flat No.663, Plot No.201,
Shalimar Garden Extension-1, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Sh. Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Krishanpal
R/o House No. 24, Tyagi Vihar, Nangloi, West, Delhi-110041.
..................................................................................Defendants.
CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 1 of 17 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
21.12.2020.
Appearances: Mr.Alok Mohan, counsel for the plaintiff (through video
Conferencing on Cisco Webex).
In compliance to the office order no. 417/RG/DHC/2020 dated 27.08.2020 of
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, order no. 5595-5615/
Judl.Br./East/KKD/Delhi dated 30.08.2020 regarding Standard Operating
Procedure/Guidelines for resumption of physical hearing and order no.
6490-6512/Judl/SHD/2020 dated 27.11.2020 in respect of Roster for physical
hearing from 01.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as well as earlier
orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and District and Sessions Judge,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the present matter is being heard
through video conferring using Cisco Webex.
****************************************************************
ORDER
1. This case is a civil suit for recovery of Rupees Five Lakhs Three Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four only (Rs.5,03,464/- only) along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10 % per annum with monthly rests filed on 14.08.2019 by The Nainital Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against Sh. Narender Kumar, Smt. Parima and Sh. Rohit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the defendants).
2. This case was assigned to the Court of learned Additional District Judge-
01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and was considered on 16.08.2019. The defendants numbers were ordered to be served but they CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 2 of 17 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
were unserved.
3. As this was a commercial dispute falling within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the CC Act), the file was received in this Court by way of transfer in compliance to the order No. 60/DHC/Gaz./G-1, VIE.2(a)/2019 dated 05.12.2019, order No. 8482-94 Judl./Shd./KKD/2019. Delhi dated 07.12.2019 and the partial modification order dated 10.12.2019 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi. This case was considered by this Court for the first time on 29.01.2020 and matter was listed for 03.02.2020 and then for 27.04.2020. Thereafter due to the pandemic because of the spread of Corona virus Covid-19, the matter was adjourned several times en bloc.
4. On 21.08.2020, the question arose whether or not the case is maintainable in respect to section 12 A of the CC Act and the matter was listed for arguments on the maintainability of the case for 31.08.2020. Then, it was adjourned for 10.09.2020, 22.09.2020, 25.09.2020, 30.09.2020 and 19.10.2020.
5. Vide order dated 19.10.2020, as the plaintiff did not appear, the case was dismissed in default.
6. Vide order dated 26.11.2020, on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order IX Rule 4 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the case was restored to its original number and position. The file of the above stated application was tagged with the main case.
7. The matter was listed for arguments on the maintainability of the case in respect of section 12 A of the CC Act for 09.12.2020. It was then listed CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 3 of 17 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
for 18.12.2020 and the written submissions were filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 14.12.2020 The matter was listed for orders on 21.12.2020.
8. Today the counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he is not to advance any arguments and the written submissions may be considered.
9. I have given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. I have also carefully perused the written submissions filed by on behalf of the plaintiff.
10.It is important to mention here that in this suit for recovery, no miscellaneous application was moved for seeking any urgent relief nor any application seeking waiver of section 12 A of the CC Act was filed along with the case.
11.The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that this case was not filed as a commercial case, so Non Starter Report are not required and at this stage, the question of maintainability of the case cannot be raised suo moto after the summons were ordered to be issued to the defendants. The CC Act is still at a nascent stage and liberal view should be taken. When the Court can give time for filing statement of truth or certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, then time should be given for mediation now also. Also, there was no objection raised before the Court of the learned predecessor or even this Court regarding maintainability from the date of filing of the case i.e. 14.08.2019 till 21.08.2020. The Commercial Courts were established from 06.12.2019 and this case was filed much earlier on 14.08.2019. Now at this stage, the case cannot be disposed over a hyper technical issue and without proper adjudication. It is also argued that the CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 4 of 17 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
plaintiff is ready to comply with all the requisite formalities during the pendency of the present case and the matter may be sent for mediation or the plaintiff itself can approach Legal Service Authority for holding mediation. It has also been argued that it is not mandatory to enter in the mediation process before filing of the suit and word 'shall not be instituted' has to be read as 'may not be instituted'. It is also argued that provisions of Section 12 A of the CC Act is only directory in nature being procedural in nature and not substantive law. The plaintiff had filed the suit on 14.08.2019 while the Bill for introducing section 12 A by way of amendment in the CC Act was introduced before the Parliament on 23.07.2018 and thereafter the amendment was passed on 01.08.2018 and it received the consent of the Hon'ble President of India on 20.08.2018.
At the time of filing of this case, no authority was constituted which is specifically designated for conducting pre-litigation mediation. The Central Government has framed the rules under sub section2 of section 12 A of the CC Act named as "Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement Rules, 2018. It is also argued that although Section 12 A of the CC Act is not applicable to the given facts but the plaintiff may be allowed to proceed further or the case may be returned granting opportunity/liberty to the plaintiff to first invoke pre-litigation mediation as per section 12 A of the CC Act and the Court fees may also be refunded. The plaintiff had moved the application for pre institution mediation thereby giving its consent for pre institution mediation before the East DLSA. Notices under rule 3 were issued to the defendants but they did not appear. The SOPs, old and new, of DLSA have not been followed. The printouts of chain of emails between the counsel for the plaintiff and DLSA are annexed with the written submissions as Annexure P-1. The plaintiff is not required to be present on every date before the DLSA and even if it were so, the absence is not fatal. The non starter report is wrong as CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 5 of 17 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Branch Manager of the plaintiff had appeared before the DLSA and his affidavit has also been filed. The DLSA has not functioned properly as its works in effortless manner and directions should be issued for conducting the proceedings properly.
12.It may be mentioned here itself that this is a commercial suit which is within the ambit of section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the CC Act which defines the commercial dispute. It reads as follows:
2. Definitions.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a).....
(aa).....
(b).....
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of--
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
......
......
13.This is a civil case for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff and is in respect of an ordinary transaction of a bank. It was the duty of the plaintiff to inform the Court that the dispute is a commercial dispute and is covered within the definition as elaborated under section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the CC Act. By failing and omitting to mention the same before the Court of the learned predecessor of this Court as well as this Court, the plaintiff has attempted to mislead the Court and play fraud upon the Court. On perusal of the record, it transpires that on the first page of the plaint in the third line on the top, there is a mention "CIVIL SUIT NO. (COMM) OF 2019" which indicates that the plaintiff was fully aware that this is a suit of commercial nature and all the mandatory requirements of the CC Act including section 12 A of the Act are required to be complied with.
CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 6 of 17 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
14.Therefore, it is crystal clear that this is a civil suit, a commercial suit, which squarely falls within the definition of "commercial suit" as defined under section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the CC Act.
15.As regards the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff that no objection was raised by the Court of the learned predecessor or even this Court regarding maintainability from the date of filing i.e. 14.08.2019 till 21.08.2020, it may be mentioned here that a legal point (maintainability in the present case) can be raised and taken up at any stage, even at the stage of judgment and there is no bar regarding the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is required to show that the present case, in the present form, is maintainable failing which the case becomes liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability.
16. Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act deal with the provision of Pre-
Institution Mediation and even if the plaintiff approaches the Legal Services Authority Cell now for holding mediation itself or Court refers the same, then it will be a Post-Institution Mediation and will not remain as Pre-Institution Mediation. Thus, a problem has arisen what should be the proper course of the action in such situation when this suit on the face of it has been filed in violation of Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act which appears to be not maintainable.
17.The Commercial Courts Act 2015 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018 came into force w.r.e.f. 03.07.2018.
18.Section 12 A of the CC Act which deals with the provision of pre institution mediation and settlement was incorporated w.e.f. 03.05.2018. CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 7 of 17 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Clause (1) of this Section reads as under:
(1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
19.The Central government has appointed authority constituted under Legal Services Authorities Act to conduct the Pre Institution Mediation under clause (2) of this Section. Clause (3) of this Section deals with the period within which the Legal Services Authority has to complete the mediation proceedings and it is further mentioned that the period spent for Pre Institution Mediation shall be excluded from the limitation period of the case. Clauses (4) and (5) of this Section mentions how the settlement, if arrived at is to be prepared and how such settlement can be enforced. The Central Government has also framed rules under this section which are known as The Commercial Courts (Pre Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018.
20.The purpose of including Section 12 A in the CC Act is to settle the commercial disputes as defined under Section 2 (c) of the CC Act, so that there should be minimum recourse to approach the Courts. This provision is also helpful in the reducing the burden of the court as well as to accelerate economic grow and improve the international image of the Indian Justice delivery system and to increase the faith of the investor world in the legal culture of the nation if the objects and reasons of this amendment are taken into consideration. Supreme Court in the case reported Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 held that provisions of the Commercial Courts Act are to be strictly followed and adhered to. It means no liberal CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 8 of 17 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
interpretation of the provisions has to be given and it should be read with narrow sense.
21.In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP 2019 SCC Online SC 1311, it was observed as follows:
"The object and purpose of the establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court is to ensure that the cases involved in commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at a reasonable cost to litigants. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts and fast tracking procedure provided under the Act, the statutory provisions of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to be meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those who are engaged in trade and commerce which in turn will further economic growth of the country."
22.The use of the words "shall not be instituted" in section 12 A of the CC Act clearly mandates that the suit of commercial nature cannot be filed at all unless Pre Institution Mediation step is followed where there is no urgent interim application for seeking some immediate relief. Dictionary meaning of word 'instituted' is read as 'commence or start'. Section 12 A of the CC Act is not a simple formality but is a necessary condition to be followed before filing of the suit or before commencing the proceedings itself. This provision clearly bars the institution of the suit itself and law does not permit the plaintiff to file the case straightway in the Court without following the mediation proceedings when no interim urgent relief is claimed that is why the provisions itself has given extension of the period of limitation because the period spent during such mediation proceedings will not be counted and has to be excluded.
23.It has been argued on behalf the plaintiff that the plaintiff had shown its CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 9 of 17 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
bonafide by appearing before the DLSA on 23.07.2019 and 03.08.2019 but the DLSA is not functioning properly and wrong non starter report dated 03.08.2019 has been given by DLSA. Here, it may be mentioned that it is for the first time during the arguments on the maintainability of the case that the contention was made regarding the functioning of DLSA and it remains unsubstantiated. Merely by filing of the affidavit of the Branch Manager along with the written submissions, the plaintiff cannot claim that the non starter report is wrong. Apparently the plaintiff did not inform or complain to the Secretary DLSA or the Court that the non starter report is wrongly prepared or that the appearance of the Branch Manager was not recorded. It was only when the question of maintainability of the case was raised that the plaintiff put up this contention. Also, the printouts of chain of emails between the counsel for the plaintiff and DLSA which are annexed with the written submissions as Annexure P-1 are in respect of some other matter and not the present case under consideration.
24.Apparently the Branch Manager of the plaintiff or its counsel did not appear in the pre institution mediation as it is mentioned in the non starter report dated 03.08.2019 that "Both the parties did not turn up to participate in the process of Pre Institution Mediation." Nothing is shown by the plaintiff to indicate that the process of pre-institution mediation before the DLSA was futile or the report is wrong.
25.When the applicant i.e. the plaintiff herein itself did not want to participate in the pre-institution mediation, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had bonafide intention to complete the process. When the plaintiff does not want to participate in the pre institution mediation (even if the defendant has also not appeared) the same indicates that the CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 10 of 17 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
plaintiff is not interested in the pre institution mediation. Even if the plaintiff may have appeared on before DLSA for moving the application for pre institution mediation but when the plaintiff did not want to participate in the pre institution mediation as stated in the non starter report dated 03.08.2019, the same points towards the lack of inclination and interest of the plaintiff to participate in the pre institution mediation. It cannot be said that the plaintiff participated or was interested in the same when the Non Starter report dated 03.08.2019 reveals otherwise.
26.Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act only deals with the Pre Institution Mediation and it is not applicable after filing of the case because taking up the matter thereafter will become Post-Institution Mediation. Even if the plaintiff itself undergoes the mediation proceedings now after filing of this case at its own or under any Court order, then no benefit in any limitation period has to be given to it. Furthermore, Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act also requires that there should be genuine efforts and bonafide act on the part of the plaintiff to participate in the mediation proceedings. By merely moving an application before Legal Services Authority for namesake to meet out the requirements of the law without any genuine intention to join in the mediation proceeding is not sufficient and cannot be termed as proper compliance of the law. Section 12 A of the CC Act is not a simple formality but a mandatory requirement and procedure of the law, if the intention of the legislature to incorporate this provision in the Commercial Courts Act is taken into consideration. In the considered view of this Court, this provision cannot be taken as simple formality and for namesake and it even cannot be bye-passed by simply moving any frivolous and baseless urgent application.
CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 11 of 17 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
27.The plea is taken by the counsel for the plaintiff that it is not mandatory to enter in the mediation process before filing of the suit and word 'shall not be instituted' has to be read as 'may not be instituted'. It is also argued that provisions of Section 12 A of the CC Act is only directory in nature being procedural in nature and not substantive law and when such procedure causes inconvenience to the innocent person or general public, then the said provision has to be treated as directory and not mandatory. However, the same is not a cogent nor convincing proposition as the procedural aspect of the Commercial Courts Act has to be strictly followed if the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai's case referred above is taken into consideration. The word 'shall' appearing in clause (1) of Section 12A cannot be read as 'may'.
28.Non-filing of statement of truth or certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act can be rectified at the later stage with their filing but pre-institution mediation, as elaborated in section 12 A of the CC Act, is a mandatory requirement and it cannot be made up with post institution mediation.
29.Another submission of the counsel for the plaintiff that the mediation process would have been a futile exercise because defendants will not join or will not be ready for any settlement is also a baseless ground as the plaintiff atleast has to mandatory see the proceedings conducted by the mediator to find out whether any fruitful result is coming or not. Pre- notion or pre-thinking of the plaintiff that mediation proceedings will not bring any result is baseless as the mediation even after some hearings can bring a good result and dispute can come to an end by some efforts of the mediator. The act of the plaintiff to straightway avoiding to take recourse of the mediation proceedings and filing of the case without such recourse CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 12 of 17 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
is liable to be condemned and there is no hesitation to say that plaintiff itself had made mockery of the mandatory provisions of Section 12 A of the CC Act by not taking such mandatory steps prior to institution of the suit.
30.Further Rule 8 of Commercial Courts (Pre Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules 2018 puts an obligation upon the parties to participate in the mediation process in good faith with an intention to settle the dispute. Thus, thinking of the plaintiff that the defendants will not join mediation proceedings in any situation or even if they do join, they will not try to settle the matter is not appreciable and it infact points out that the plaintiff does not have any good faith and real bonafide intention. Plaintiff is required to wait for the decision of the mediator before making up the mind that the defendants in all circumstances would not join mediation proceedings or will frustrate the same. The act of the defendants in not participating or refusing to settle the dispute through mediation can go against them during trial also and the Court can even ask the defendant to pay the expenses of the mediation to the plaintiff in such situation but at least plaintiff should have waited for the Pre Institution Mediation process to be completed as required under law. In the present matter, the plaintiff apparently has not complied with the mandatory requirement of pre institution mediation. The plaintiff was required to follow all the mandatory procedure before instituting this suit. In fact, the plaintiff itself did not want to participate in the pre institution mediation, as mentioned in the Non Starter report dated 03.08.2019 that the plaintiff, besides the defendants, did not turn up.
31.The plaintiff even cannot avoid going for Pre Institution Mediation on the ground that under the Rules, it is required to pay few thousands rupees CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 13 of 17 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
toward application fee and thereafter, the mediator fee as per Schedule II of Rule 11 of Commercial Court (Pre Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules 2018. Compliance of mandatory provisions cannot be avoided on ground of any financial crunch which is also not a case of the plaintiff. Otherwise also, when the Rules are putting an obligation upon the plaintiff to pay certain amount as mediation fees, then the same has to be complied with and it is for the Legal Services Authority to see whether this fees has to be compulsory taken or can be waived off.
32.The plaintiff cannot be excused from avoiding the provisions of Section 12 A of CC Act as it is a mandatory provision and not depends upon the entire discretion of the plaintiff. The word "shall not be instituted" makes it mandatory to go to mediation before filing of the suit in the Court unless interim urgent relief is claimed and this word 'shall' cannot be treated as 'may'. In the considered opinion of this Court, the act and conduct of the plaintiff in not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 12 A of CC Act before institution of the suit puts a bar not to proceed further with this case.
33.It is important to mention here that section 12 A was inserted in the CC Act vide Chapter III A (containing section 12 A) by Act 28 of 20118 , sec.11 (w.r.e.f. 03.05.2018). The designated authority for conducting Pre- Institution Mediation is clearly elaborated in the CC Act as well as Commercial Courts (Pre Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules 2018.
34.Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) reads as follows:
10. Return of plaint.- (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 14 of 17 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted.
Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint, under this sub- rule.
(2) Procedure on returning --On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.
35.On perusal of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, it is clear that it shall be applicable only when the case has been instituted in the Court not having jurisdiction and it is to be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. In the present case, jurisdiction i.e. pecuniary and territorial lie in this Court i.e. Commercial Court and the case could not be instituted in any other Court since the case is of a commercial dispute. Therefore, the case cannot be returned to the plaintiff.
36.Since due to violation of the mandatory provision, as elaborated above, the suit itself could not have been instituted or filed without such Pre Institution Mediation so the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. No question of return of the plaint in such situation arises under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC because where the suit is barred by any law, then the plaint has to be rejected and not to be returned.
37.Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC reads as follows:
Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 15 of 17 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e)...
(f)...
38.The present case under consideration apparently is barred by law as there is a clear violation of section of section12 A of the CC Act since the plaintiff did not turn up to participate in the pre institution mediation, as elaborated in the Non Starter report dated 03.08.2019.
39.Here, it is also pertinent to mention that in the order dated 24.02.2020 of the hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Trinity Globemerchants Pvt. Ltd. v. Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., CS (Comm) 16/2020, the case was withdrawn by the plaintiff. However, the same is of no help to the plaintiff as in the present matter under consideration no such submission has been made by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the case and arguments on the maintainability of the case in respect of section 12 A of the CC Act have been addressed and the written submissions have been filed.
40.In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, the conscience of this Court is fully satisfied that the present suit is not maintainable being barred by law. The present case, which is a commercial dispute and a civil suit for recovery, is hereby under order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC being not maintainable due to non compliance of Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act.
41.The plaintiff, however, can file fresh suit only after compliance with CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 16 of 17 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
mandatory provisions of law under Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act and other provisions, subject to the period of limitation and law.
42.No Court fees paid in this suit shall be returned or refunded to the plaintiff as in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, there is no provision to return the same.
43.After completion of formalities, the JA/Ahlmad of the Court shall consign the file to the record room.
44.Also, the file of the application of the plaintiff under Order IX Rule 4 read with section 151 of the CPC bearing number Misc. DJ -470/2020,, which is tagged with the main case, be separately consigned to the record room along with copy of today's ordersheet. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date: 2020.12.21 SHARMA 12:56:19 +0530 Announced through video (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) conferencing on Cisco Webex on District Judge, this 21st day of December, 2020. Commercial Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 21.12.2020.
**************************************************************** CS (Comm) No. 81/2019. The Nainital Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar and others. -:: Page 17 of 17 ::-