Delhi High Court
M/S R B Enterprises vs Jai Deep Goel on 6 November, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 6th November, 2017
+ TR.P.(C.) 18/2017
M/S R B ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Versus
JAI DEEP GOEL ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anjali Chopra, Advocate
+ TR.P.(C.) 20/2017
AVNEET GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through:Mr.P.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Versus
JAI DEEP GOYAL ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anjali Chopra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. These petitions, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC), seek transfer of Suits being CS No.518/2016 (renumbered as
CS No.13173/2016) titled Shri Avneet Goyal vs. Shri Jai Deep Goyal and
Suit being CS No.519/2016 (renumbered as CS No.13174/2016) titled Shri
Jai Deep Goel vs. M/s R.B. Enterprises both of the Court of Ms. Vandana
Chauhan, Additional District Judge-15, (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi to this Court.
2. Notice of the petition was ordered to be issued and the counsel for the
respondent appears.
3. The senior counsel for the petitioners has argued:
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 1 of 8
(i) that the first of the aforesaid Suit was instituted by the petitioner
Avneet Goyal against Jai Deep Goyal for recovery of
Rs.99,13,337/-;
(ii) that the second of the Suits aforesaid was instituted by the
respondent Jai Deep Goyal against the petitioner R.B. Enterprises
for recovery of Rs.54,98,150/-;
(iii) that both the Suits aforesaid were filed / instituted in this Court;
(iv) that on enhancement of the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this
Court on enactment of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015,
both the Suits aforesaid were transferred to the subordinate courts;
(v) that both the Suits are commercial suits within the meaning of The
Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 („Commercial Courts
Act‟ for short);
(vi) that as per the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts
Act, said Suits ought not to have been transferred to the
subordinate courts and have been wrongly transferred.
4. Reliance is placed on the order dated 2nd November, 2016 in TR.P.(C)
No.117/2016 titled Bimla Agarwal vs. Gupta International & Others of this
Court.
5. The counsel for the respondent opposes the transfer.
6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Vide Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, the minimum
pecuniary ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court was enhanced
from that in excess of Rs.20 Lakhs to that in excess of Rs.2 Crores.
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 2 of 8
However, simultaneously therewith, the Commercial Courts Act aforesaid
was also enacted which created Commercial Divisions in the High Courts
having original civil jurisdiction and vide Section 7 thereof provided that all
suits and applications relating to commercial disputes of a specified value
filed in a High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction shall be heard
and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
8. Section 2(i) of the Commercial Courts Act defines "specified value" in
relation to commercial dispute as the value of the subject matter in respect of
a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 and which shall not be
less than Rs.1 Crore or such higher value as may be notified by the Central
Government.
9. Both the aforesaid Suits are for recovery of less than Rs.1 Crore and
thus not of the specified value.
10. The same would thus not qualify them as falling within the
jurisdiction of the Commercial Division of this Court.
11. The contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners however is that
since the said Suits were instituted prior to coming into force of the
Commercial Courts Act, notwithstanding being of less than the specified
value defined in the Commercial Courts Act, are to be tried by this Court
only in terms of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act.
The said proviso reads as under:
"Provided that all suits and applications relating to
commercial disputes, stipulated by an Act to lie in a court
not inferior to a District Court, and filed or pending on
the original side of the High Court, shall be heard and
disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High
Court."
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 3 of 8
12. On it being enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner, as to
how the Suits aforesaid qualify the requirement of "stipulated by an Act to
lie in a court not inferior to a District Court", the senior counsel for the
petitioner has drawn attention to Section 25 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918
extended to Delhi and which provides as under:
"25. Original jurisdiction of District Judge in suits -
Except as otherwise provided by any enactment for the
time being in force, the court of the District Judge shall
have jurisdiction [in every original civil suit the value of
which does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.]"
The said provision as applicable to Delhi also, has been amended
simultaneously with the High Court Amendment Act to substitute the words
"rupees twenty lacs" with the words "rupees two crores".
13. I have enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner, whether the
petitioner, who has instituted the Suit for recovery of money, is not
interested in expeditious recovery of its money. Judicial notice can be taken
of the fact that owing to the respective roster of the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of this Court and of the courts of the District Judges/Additional
District Judges, disposal of suits before the District Judges or Additional
District Judges is much quicker than the disposal of suits before this Court.
The only reason which can be fathomed for the petitioners herein to seek
transfer of the Suits which are pending before the Additional District Judge,
can be to avoid liability under a decree likely to be passed in the Suit filed by
the respondent and to avoid dismissal of own Suit which appears to have
been filed only for the purpose of contesting the clam in the Suit filed by the
respondent.
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 4 of 8
14. With the aforesaid intent, the petitioner is found to be erroneously
applying the principle of interpretation of statutes, ignoring the difference
between the words "stipulated by an Act to lie in a Court not inferior to a
District Court" and the words prescribing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court of the District Judge. Merely because the Punjab Courts Act, while
prescribing the hierarchy / classes of courts and while stipulating the
pecuniary jurisdiction of each of such class of courts, has stipulated the
maximum pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge as that
above that of the Court of small causes and not in excess of Rs.3 Lakhs and
of the court of the District Judge as not in excess of Rs.2 Crores does not
mean that the Punjab Courts Act stipulates that a suit for recovery of money
cannot lie in a court inferior to a District Court.
15. What the language of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial
Courts Act conveys is that there should be a statutory bar, as is to be found in
Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright
Act, 1957, to institution of a Suit for reliefs claimed thereunder in a court
inferior to the court of the District Judge. There is no such bar in Section 25
of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
16. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Subhashini Malik Vs. S.K.
Gandhi (2016) 233 DLT 83 held that pecuniary limits of jurisdiction
prescribed for administration of justice and Section 15 of the CPC do not
divest the Courts of a higher pecuniary jurisdiction from entertaining the
suits below their minimum pecuniary value. On the same parity of
reasoning, in Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. Manju Awasthy (1997) 68
DLT 112, it has been held that there is no bar in exercise of powers under
Section 24 of the CPC to transfer of a suit from a court to a court higher than
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 5 of 8
the court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction as per the valuation of that suit.
17. Section 25 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is not found to stipulate,
within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial
Courts Act, that a suit for recovery of money will not lie in a court inferior to
a District Court. Admittedly the Suits are now pending in the court of the
Additional District Judge.
18. As far as the reliance by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
on the judgment aforesaid of this Court is concerned, the same does not
consider the aforesaid aspects and the judgment is per incuriam qua the
same. The said judgment in turn refers to paras 17&18 of Kamal Sharma vs.
Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. 2016 229 DLT 438 and to
para no.8 of Guiness World Records Ltd. Vs. Sababbi Mangal 230 (2016)
DLT 377.
19. This Court in Kamal Sharma supra was concerned with the question
whether this Court, notwithstanding the enhancement in the minimum
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and notwithstanding the Notification for
transfer of pending suits below the enhanced minimum pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Court to the subordinate Courts, could consider an
application for amendment of the plaint to enhance the valuation of the relief
claimed in the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. It was held
that this Court was not functus officio and did not lack jurisdiction to deal
with such an application. This Court in Kamal Sharma was not concerned
with the issue as had arisen in Bimla Agarwal supra or has been raised by
the senior counsel for the petitioners herein. The observations in para
nos.17&18 of Kamal Sharma thus cannot be held to be laying down
anything contrary to what I have held above.
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 6 of 8
20. Similarly, Guiness World Records Ltd. supra was not concerned with
the issue as has been raised by the senior counsel for the petitioners and
observations in para no.8 thereof quoted in Bimla Agarwal supra cannot be
read out of context. The question for consideration in Guiness World
Records Ltd. was whether "IPR matters covered under the different
provisions of the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act, Designs Act, Patents Act
and Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act,
1999" pending in this Court on the date of coming into force of the
Commercial Courts Act and even if the pecuniary jurisdiction of these
matters was below Rs.1 crore were liable to be transferred to the subordinate
Courts. It was held that the said matters were covered by the first proviso to
Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act and thus not liable to be transferred.
21. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there
was no need for issuance of the Notification dated 28th April, 2016 if that
were so. The said Notification is as under:
"Hon‟ble the Chief Justice vide Notification dated 28 th April,
2016 has been pleased to order issuance of the following
addendum to Notification No.27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated
24.11.2015:-
"All suits and applications covered by the first
proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts Act, 2015 filed or pending
as on 26.10.2015 on the Original Side of the Delhi
High Court, shall remain in the Delhi High Court
and shall be heard and disposed of by the
Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court."
In terms of the said addendum, all suits and applications
relating to commercial disputes stipulated by an Act to lie in
a Court not inferior to a District Court, which have been
transferred to the District Courts pursuant to the Notification
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 7 of 8
No.27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015 shall be recalled
back to the Delhi High Court for being heard and disposed of
by the Commercial Division of Delhi High Court. Partied to
such suits or applications may also approach the concerned
District Courts for sending such suits or applications to Delhi
High Court for disposal by the Commercial Division of Delhi
High Court. All such suits and applications that shall be
recalled, on receipt from the District Courts, in the first
instance shall be listed before the Joint Registrars for fixation
of dates for listing before the Commercial Division of the
Delhi High Court."
22. The said notification was issued because it was found that Suits which
were stipulated by an Act to be not triable by a court below the District Court
were also being transferred. I have already hereinabove explained that the
Suits subject matter of these petitions do not fall in that category.
23. There is no merit in the petitions. In fact the petitions are found to be
in abuse of the process of the Court and intended to interfere in decision of
the Suits of which transfer is sought.
24. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2017 „pk/gsr‟..
TR.P.(C) Nos.18/2017 & 20/2017 Page 8 of 8