Rr Kabel L vs M/S. K. Ra

Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit - Vs M/S. K. Raj And Co. And 02 Ors.

Case Details

Case Type	Sum.Civ.Suit
Filing Number	324/2019
Registration Number	13/2019
Filing Date	18-10-2019
Registration Date	18-10-2019

First Hearing Date	22nd October 2019
Decision Date	11th December 2020
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	2-Civil Judge Sd And Chief Judicial Magistrate;
Nature of Disposal	Uncontested--Return Of Plaint;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit , Through Manager (Accounts) Rajkumar Dadhich, ;

Shri. Dipakkumar G. Shah;

Respondent Name

M/S. K. Raj And Co. And Ors., Mr. Ajay Kumar Garg, Mrs. Kamaladevi Ajaykumar Garg;

Respondent Advocate

Not Available At The Time Of Cis Registration, Not Available At The Time Of Cis Registration, Not Av Show more

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

11-12-2020

CNR No.: UTDN01-001387-2019 Sum. Civ. Suit No. 13/2019 ORDER BELOW EXH. 1 The plaintiff – R.R. Kabel Limited Company has filed present suit under Order 37 Rule II of Code of Civil Procedure. Suit summons were issued to the defendants, but they did not appear. Thereafter, the plaintiff led his evidence. While going through the entire record of the suit, this Court had raised queries in respect of jurisdiction. Hence, on 21.08.2020 this Court had given directions to the plaintiff to argue on the point of jurisdiction of Commercial Suit and also on the point of territorial jurisdiction as the defendants resides and carries their business at Delhi. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted his Written Notes of Argument vide Exh.77. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also submitted oral argument. I have gone through the Written Notes of Argument submitted by the plaintiff. I have gone through the provisions of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 2] The plaintiff has filed present suit for recovery of Rs.1,66,58,240/- (Rs. One Crore Sixty Six Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fourty Only). As per contents of the Plaint, the plaintiff company had supplied goods of different types to the defendant company. Out of the said transaction, an amount of Rs.1,12,24,048/- (Rs. One Crore Twelve Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Forty Eight Only) was due against the defendants as principle amount. The defendants issued two cheques to the plaintiff company. But the cheques were dishonored. Thereafter, the plaintiff company had filed criminal complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act which bears S.C.C. No.399/2019 against the defendants. The said case is still pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Silvassa. (These are the facts in short of plaintiff's suit). 3] Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff company is manufacturing the goods. The word “manufacture” is not mentioned in the defination of Commercial Court. So also, the present suit is based on bill of exchange which is negotiable instrument. Hence, the provisions of Commercial Court are not applicable to present suit. In section 2 sub section (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, it is mentioned that ordinary transactions of merchant, banker, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents are also commercial dispute. The word “manufacture” is not mentioned in the said defination of commercial dispute. However, in my opinion, manufacturing of goods for commercial transactions are one of the base of any ordinary transaction of merchants or traders. So also, the documents filed with the list – Exh.3 shows that there are transactions of merchants or traders such as those relating to mercantile documents. Hence, in my opinion, the present suit comes within the defination of Commercial dispute as mentioned in section 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 4] Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also argued that in the present suit, the defendants did not appear before the Court and contest the suit and hence, the provision of Summary Suit are applicable and not of the Commercial Suit. Section 15 of Commercial Courts Act says that all suits and application relating to commercial dispute of a specified value pending in any Civil Court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court. 5] Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,66,58,240/- (Rs. One Crore Sixty Six Lac Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Forty Only). As per Notification of Union Territory Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu No.LAW/DMN/CCCD & AD (19)/2016-2017/25 dated 27/01/2020, the Union Territory Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu has specified the pecuniary value of Rs.50,00,000/- for the entire Union Territory. The said Notification is based on the letter of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay No.B(W)A-2012 of 2018/176/2538 dated 21.01.2020. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay has clarified some points to the Law Secretary of this Territory vide its letter no.B(W)A-2102 of 2018/2563/37850 dated 28.11.2019. In the said letter, the reference of the Government of Maharashtra Notification no.SPC 1319/162/C.R.36/IX dated 03.07.2019 has been given. There are three Notifications dated 03.07.2019 bearing no.SPC 1319/162/C.R.36/IX. All these Notifications and the letters shows that this Court has no jurisdiction to try present Suit. 6] The plaintiff's suit is appears to be commercial dispute as per the defination mentioned in clause (c) of section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act. As per the Notifications and letter Supra, this Court has no jurisdiction to try present suit. As per Plaint, the plaintiff is praying for recovery of Rs.1,66,58,240/- out of commercial transaction. So also, it is required to mentioned that the defendants resides at Delhi and the plaintiff has also filed criminal complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the defendants in respect of those two cheques which are mentioned in the Plaint. Thus, in my opinion, this Court has no jurisdiction to conduct present suit and as per section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, this suit is required to be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction. In the present suit the defendants did not appear before the Court. Hence, in my opinion, compliance of section 10(A) of Code of Civil Procedure is not necessary. I pass following order :- O R D E R 1. The present suit be returned to the plaintiff to be presented in the District Court (Commercial Court), Silvassa vide Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The parties are directed to remain present before District Court (Commercial Court), Silvassa on 11.01.2021. 3. Inform to parties accordingly. Sd/- [Y. S. Paithankar] Date: 11/12/2020 Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Silvassa. Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. CERTIFICATE I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. File judgment/ order are same, word to word, as per the original judgment. Name of the Jr. Clerk :- Mr. Arvind P. Maheshwari Court :- Civil Court (Sr. Dn.) Date :- 11.12.2020 Judgment signed by the Presiding officer on :- 11.12.2020 Judgment uploaded on :- 11.12.2020

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit - vs M/S. K. Raj And Co. And 02 Ors. is Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit - and 2 more.

The Respondent in case Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit - vs M/S. K. Raj And Co. And 02 Ors. is M/S. K. Raj And Co. And 02 Ors. and 3 more.

The case against M/S. K. Raj And Co. And 02 Ors.was filed on 18-10-2019 by Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit -.

The status of case Rr Kabel Ltd. (Unit - against M/S. K. Raj And Co. And 02 Ors. is Case Disposed.