Gujarat High Court
Bata India Limited vs Sunil Arjundas Parwani on 18 September, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13433/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13433 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13433 of 2024
==================================================
BATA INDIA LIMITED
Versus
SUNIL ARJUNDAS PARWANI & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR NEERAJ GROVER with MS. KETKI P JHA(9864) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 18/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The present petition invoking the extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, namely the 13 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant/petitioner herein. Invoking the provisions of Order VII Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Sep 20 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 23 20:41:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13433/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2024 undefined Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant had raised various grounds for rejection of plaint, which were non-compliance of the provision of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order VI Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XI of Code of Civil Procedure.
2.1. The Commercial Court while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has formed an opinion that the application has been filed just to delay the proceedings. It was noted that the suit being Commercial Suit was valued at Rs.3 lakhs and hence in accordance with the administrative order dated 08.09.2021, it was transferred from the District Court, Vadodara to the Commercial Court. The suit was initially presented on 23.10.2020 and was later by administrative order converted into Commercial Suit No. 154 of 2021. It is noteworthy that the notice of the suit was served upon the defendant and learned advocate for the defendant had put in appearance and the notice was served to the learned advocates of both the sides on 01.10.2021 when the suit was converted into Commercial Suit and transferred to the Commercial Court. The Records and Proceedings of the suit indicated that the defendant filed adjournment reports on 08.03.2022, 16.03.2022 and 12.05.2022, but did not file any written statement. The right to file Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Sep 20 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 23 20:41:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13433/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2024 undefined written statement of the defendant was closed on 16.06.2022 and subsequent thereto, application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 07.11.2022.
3. Insofar as the main ground to press the application under VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure about violation of the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2022 SCC 3848, it was rightly recorded by the Commercial Court that the said provision was brought by way of the Amendment Act of the year 2018 which was held to be prospective in nature effective from 20.08.2022 onwards. In view of the ratio of the said decision, the plaint cannot be rejected on the plea of violation of the provisions Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act as it was presented before the Commercial Court with the transfer in the year 2021.
4. With regard to other grounds, such as non-compliance of the provisions of Order VI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Order XI of Code of Civil Procedure, we are of the considered view that the said provisions cannot be incorporated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, inasmuch as, the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Sep 20 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 23 20:41:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13433/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2024 undefined confined with grounds aligned in clauses (a) to (f) therein. It is clear that the aforesaid two grounds taken by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of plaint do not fall within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
5. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Commercial Court. The present petition is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits.
Consequently, the connected Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Sep 20 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 23 20:41:35 IST 2024