IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of inherent jurisdiction can be raised in an execution proceeding, and the subject matter jurisdiction vested with the High Court under the Commercial Courts Act, causing no prejudice to the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor has argued that originally, the suit was filed in Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this High Court in 2019 but, according to him, it should have been filed in the Commercial Division since the relevant provisions under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 have come into force from the year 2015. According to him, initially a decree was passed on consent of the parties and the amount of such consent decree was approximately Rs. 6 crores. The judgment-debtor paid about Rs. 3 crores. However, as the judgment-debtor was unable to pay the entire amount, the instant execution proceeding has been launched.

2. The learned counsel has further pointed out that during the pendency of the execution proceeding, it appears to him that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass the relevant decree on 06.01.2020. The learned counsel has further pointed out that there was a jural relationship between the parties and from the materials on record it would be evident that there was commercial transaction between the concerned parties on the basis of oral contract. The judgment-debtor’s status was recognized by the Indian Newspaper Service.

3. It is also argued from the side of the judgment-debtor that Section 2(c)(xiv) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 deals with the Commercial dispute and under sub-section 2(c)(xiv) it is laid down that a dispute arising out of mercantile agency and mercantile usage should be treated as a commercial dispute. As there was a contractual relationship between the parties at the relevant point of time the dispute is a commercial one and therefore the relevant suit should have been filed before the Commercial Division of the High Court instead of its Ordinary Original Jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel has also drawn attention of this court to Sections 7, 15(1) and (2) and also Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. According to him, as per section 7 of the Act, 2015, it has been laid down that all suits and obligations relating to a commercial disputes of a specified valued filed in a High Court having Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of that High Court. As the relevant suit being CS No. 182 of 2019 has been filed long after coming into force of the Act, 2015, the learned Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit involving commercial dispute of a specified value.

5. The learned counsel has also pointed out that under Section 15(1) of the Act 2015, the suit being CS No. 182 of 2019 should have been transferred to the Commercial Division of the High Court but that was not done in this case rather the learned Trial Court proceeded with the suit in violation of provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to a judicial decision reported in (2023) 1 SCC 549 (Jaycee Housing Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, Cuttack & Ors.) in support of his contention that as per Section 15 of 2015 Act all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall have to be transferred to the commercial court. Further, as per Section 21 of 2015 Act, it has the overriding effect. It provides that save and otherwise provided the provisions of the Act, 2015 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

6. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to an unreported decision passed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CS No. 23 of 2015 (Dr. Dilip Chaudhury Vs. Pratishruti Projects Limited & Ors.) wherein the Hon’ble Judge has been pleased to explain the position of the law in connection with the Act, 2015 and also so far as regards the suits to be dealt with under Section 15. In paragraph 19, it has been specifically observed that sub-section 5 of Section 15 contempl