Important Point:
The Gujarat Agricultural University can be said to be/called as Corporation aggregate and therefore, will be deemed to be Public Undertaking writhing the meaning of section 2(i)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the dispute arising out of the Public Works Contract between the Gujarat Agricultural University and the Contractor shall have to be decided by the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1992.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Vadodara dated 20.9.2016 passed below Ex.9 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 252 of 2016, by which the learned Commercial Court has allowed the said application preferred by the original defendant and has rejected the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1992" for short), the suit before the Civil Court/ Commercial Court shall not be maintainable and the dispute between the parties to the suit is required to be resolved by the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act, the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal.

2. Mr. Ansin Desai, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant- original plaintiff and Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original defendant.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the dispute between the parties is pertaining to and/or with respect to the Public Works Contract. The aforesaid is not disputed by Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff. On an application filed by the defendant below Ex.9 submitted under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relying upon and considering the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University vs. Patel and Company, 1999 (2) GLR 1264 and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sorathia Velji Ratna & Co. vs. Gujarat Agricultural University and Another, 2000 (4) GLR 3666, by which with respect to other Universities established under the provisions of the University Act, 1969 and with respect to Sardar Patel University and considering the provisions of the Act of 1992, the learned Commercial Court has allowed the said application and held that the Suit before the Civil Court/Commercial Court shall be barred and the dispute between the parties is required to be resolved only through/by the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1992.

3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

4. Mr. Desai, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commercial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4.1. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has further submitted that merely because Pay and Allowances are paid by the State Government, it cannot be said that the State has control over the defendant-Maharaja Sayajirao University and therefore, it can be said to be Public Undertaking and therefore, shall not fall within the definition of Public Undertaking under the provisions of the Act of 1992 and therefore, solely on the aforesaid ground the learned Commercial Court ought not to have allowed the application Ex.9 and ought not to have rejected the plaint.

4.2. In support of his above submission, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another, 2011 (2) GLH 107.

4.3. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has further submitted that even otherwise, the learned Commercial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint. It is submitted that if the learned Commercial Court was of the opinion that the Civil Court/Commercial Court has no jurisdiction, in that case, instead of rejecting the plaint, the