1. The appellants/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2016 passed by the learned Joint Registrar, transferring the present suit to the court of the learned District Judge, South-East District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in terms of the Notification dated 24.11.2015, issued under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court(Amendment) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the amendment Act’).

2. The ground for laying a challenge to the aforesaid order of transfer is that the learned Joint Registrar had failed to appreciate the concept of `specified value, as mentioned in Section 12 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as `the Commercial Courts Act’), that was promulgated on 23.10.2015, and the present dispute squarely falls under the definition of `commercial dispute’, in terms of Section 2(c) (i), (xii) & (xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act. It has been averred in the appeal that on 5.1.2016, the appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 had filed an affidavit, detailing the ‘specified value’ in terms of Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act and determining the `specified value’ of the suit at Rs.4,41,90,000/-, which has been completely overlooked by the Joint Registrar.

3. Mr.Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that in view of the averments made in the affidavit dated 5.1.2016 filed by the appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 wherein the specified value of the suit has been determined at Rs.4,41,90,000/-, the same could not be transferred to the trial court and though an objection to the transfer was taken before the learned Joint Registrar, the said plea was not appreciated. Hence the present Chamber Appeal.

4. A detailed reply in opposition to the present Chamber Appeal has been filed by the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 challenging the maintainability thereof by invoking the provisions of Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act and referring to Section 21, which is the non-obstante clause and prescribes that the Commercial Courts Act has an overriding effect. The Chamber Appeal is also opposed on the ground that in the plaint, the appellants/plaintiffs have themselves valued the suit at Rs.21,00,000/-for the relief of damages which is far below the revised pecuniary jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court, fixed at over Rs.2,00,00,000/-w.e.f. 26.10.2015. As for the appellants/plaintiffs’ claim that the specified value of the suit aggregates to R.4,41,90,000/-in terms of the averments made in the affidavit dated 5.1.2016, wherein the value of each share has been determined at Rs.22,500/-, it was submitted that the said valuation is completely arbitrary and without any basis.

5. Mr.Maria, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 7 had argued that the affidavit in question has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs without seeking prior permission from the court and without an accompanying application for leave to enhance the suit valuation. He has also disputed the plea taken by the appellants/plaintiffs that the suit falls in the category of a “commercial dispute”, as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act and clarified that the suit raises a dispute between family members and the appellants/plaintiffs have sought partition and claimed damages from the respondents/defendants. He further submitted that there is no document or a contract executed between the parties and nor is there any shareholders agreement or contract of agency to attract the provisions of Section 2 (c) (i), (xii) & (xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act. It was thus submitted that the learned Joint Registrar had correctly transferred the suit to the District Court and the said order does not deserve to be set aside.

6. This court has heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties, ex