Bombay High Court
Chemtex Engineering Of India Private ... vs Schindler India Pvt Ltd And Anr. on 25 July, 2025
025:BHC-AS:6-DB
Megha 5_comfast_6417_2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6417 OF 2025
Chemtex Engineering of India
Private Ltd. ...Appellant
V/s.
Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents
______________
Ms. Yashvi Panchal for the Appellant.
Mr. Chirag Mody with Ms. Prachi Garg and Ms. Mahek Shah i/b.
M/s. DSL Legal for the Respondents.
______________
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 25 JULY 2025.
Order (PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
1) This Appeal is filed by the Appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 21 October 2024 passed by the leanred Additional District Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, allowing Notice of Motion No.103506 of 2023 and rejecting the Plaint in Commercial Suit No.100844 of 2022 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code).
Page No. 1 of 3
25 July 2025
Megha 5_comfast_6417_2025.docx
2) We have heard Ms. Panchal, the learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Mody, the learned counsel appering for the Respondents. We have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 21 October 2024.
3) There is no dispute to the position that Commercial Suit No.100844 of 2022 filed by the Appellant is in respect of the same premises for which Suit No.1493 of 2020 is instituted by it. Suit No.1493 of 2020 is apparently filed for injunction simplicitor. As against this, Commercial Suit No.100844 of 2022 is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.51,33,004/- from the Defendant claiming compensation for the use of the equipment kept in the premises, for which the previsous suit is pending.
4) Learned Trial Court has observed that the Appellant/Plaintiff could have included the claim for compensation in Suit No.1493 of 2020 and subsequent suit is barred under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code. The learned Trial Court has further held that previously filed suit could have been amended rather than filing a fresh suit.
5) We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that since both the suits are in respect of same parties and same premises, Plaintiff could have opted for availment of previous suit rather than filing of the fresh suit. We therefore, do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
Page No. 2 of 3
25 July 2025
Megha 5_comfast_6417_2025.docx
The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However the
Appellant/Plaintiff shall be at liberty to file application for amendment in the Plaint of Suit No.1493 of 2020 for incorporating the reliefs sought in Commercial Suit No.100844 of 2022. Such application, if filed shall be decided on its own merits.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [ CHIEF JUSTICE]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 25 July 2025
Date: 28/07/2025 14:58:12