Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Tefilah Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director Siddhartha Gupta, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-84) in Com. O.S. No. 787/2022. The impugned order dismissed I.A. No. III filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 10 and Section 16 of the CPC read with Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking return of the plaint filed by the respondent-plaintiff to be re-presented before the competent civil court having regular jurisdiction. The respondent, Balwinder Singh Bagary, represented by his SPA holder Rajeev Ghadi, had filed the commercial suit against the petitioners seeking specific performance of an agreement relating to a property situated in England. The petitioners contended that the Commercial Court at Bengaluru lacked territorial jurisdiction as the suit property was in England and no part of the cause of action arose in Bengaluru. The trial court dismissed the application holding that since the defendant was residing in Bengaluru, the Commercial Court had jurisdiction. The High Court examined the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly Section 2(1)(c)(vii) which defines 'Commercial Court' as a court exercising jurisdiction in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value and having territorial jurisdiction as determined by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The Court held that the territorial jurisdiction of a Commercial Court is not based on the residence of the defendant but on the location of the subject matter or the cause of action. Since the suit property was in England and no cause of action arose in Bengaluru, the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction. The High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed I.A. No. III, directing the return of the plaint to the respondent for presentation before the competent court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Return of Plaint - Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Section 16 CPC, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The petitioners-defendants sought return of plaint on the ground that the Commercial Court at Bengaluru lacked territorial jurisdiction as the suit property was situated in England and no part of cause of action arose in Bengaluru - The trial court dismissed the application holding that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction as the defendant was residing in Bengaluru - The High Court held that the territorial jurisdiction of a Commercial Court is determined by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and since the suit property was in England and no cause of action arose in Bengaluru, the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction - The impugned order was quashed and the application for return of plaint was allowed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court at Bengaluru had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 16 CPC and Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Com. O.S. No. 787/2022, and allowed I.A. No. III filed by the petitioners. The Court directed the return of the plaint to the respondent for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of Commercial Court is determined by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction
- Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 16 CPC
- Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act
