SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Guj) 1535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia, JJ.
Vasu Healthcare Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Gujarat Akruti TCG Biotch Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 199 of 2017 With Civil Application No. 8083 of 2017 In Appeal From Order No. 199 of 2017
Decided On : 10-07-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. SP Majmudar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Salil M. Thakore, Caveator

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Commercial act, Section 2(c), 2(c)(vii), 2(c)(xx), 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(i) -Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge Commercial Court below in Commercial Civil Suit No by which in exercise of power under Order Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure the learned Judge Commercial Court has returned the plaint to the original plaintiff to present it before appropriate Court having jurisdiction the original plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal From Order -Appellant herein -Original plaintiff instituted a Commercial Civil Suit in the Court of learned Judge Commercial Court for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for recovery of damages and for refund of part payment declaration and permanent injunction -Plaintiff that the State Government allotted the land in question and entered into an agreement with the respondent No 1 herein -Original defendant to develop Biotech Phase –Held, Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the dispute between the parties for specific performance of the agreement between the original plaintiff and original defendant and the reliefs sought and the language and phraseology exclusively in trade or commerce used in section of the Commercial Courts Act it cannot be said that the dispute between the original plaintiff and original defendant can be said to be commercial dispute within the definition of section of the Commercial Courts Act for which the Commercial Court would have jurisdiction -Learned Commercial Court has rightly allowed the application and has rightly returned the plaint to the original plaintiff to present it before appropriate Court by observing that as the dispute between the original plaintiff and defendants cannot be said to be commercial dispute within the definition of section of the Commercial Courts Act and therefore, the suit before the Commercial Court shall not be maintainable -We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Commercial Court –Present Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara below Exh.17 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 294/2016 by which in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) the learned Judge, Commercial Court has returned the plaint to the original plaintiff to present it before appropriate Court having jurisdiction, the original plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal From Order.

2. The facts leading to the present Appeal From Order in nut-shell are as under:

3. That the appellant herein - original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff) instituted a Commercial Civil Suit No. 294/2016 in the Court of learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “learned Commercial Court”) for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for recovery of damages and for refund of part payment, declaration and permanent injunction.

4. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the State Government allotted the land in question and entered into an agreement with the respondent No 1 herein - original defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “original defendant No. 1”) to develop Akruti Gujarat Biotech, Phase-II, at Savli, GIDC Estate, Vadodara. A contract was entered into between the State Government and original defendant No. 1. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the original defendant No. 1 thereafter was required to develop the land for Biotech Park. That the original plaintiff invested huge sum and entered into the contract with the original defendant No. 1. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that for number of years nothing was done and the plots which were allotted to the original defendant No. 1 were not developed and therefore, the original plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit before the learned Commercial Court for the following reliefs.

“(a) The decree for specific performance/enforcement of the subject contract i.e SC may kindly be pleased in favour of the plaintiffs as against the defendants and consequentially the defendants may kindly be ordered and directed/mandated to execute the transfer deed/deed of conveyance through execution of lease deed/assignment deed of lease in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the subject property in furtherance of the subject contract i.e SC and consequentially the subject contract i.e SC may kindly be ordered to be specifically performed/enforced in favor of the plaintiff and thereby the entire process/formality to effectuate the transfer of the absolute leasehold rights in respect of the subject property may kindly be ordered and directed to be caused by through defendants in favour of the plaintiff and/or alternatively and independently the amount of Rs. 10,75,12,196 as specified and detailed by the plaintiff in the plaint may kindly be awarded as compensation in addition to and/or independent to the relief of specific performance of the subject contract;

(b) it may kindly be declared that the defendants have committed breach and/or default in completing the performance and fulfillment of their contractual obligations as per SC in respect of the subject property;

(c) the defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, assignees, transferres and every person claiming for and on behalf of them may kindly be permanently restrained from causing any act, things or deed either threatening and/or invading or in any capable to cause destruction, obstacle, obstruction to and against the plaintiffs' proprietary and legal rights in the subject property in any manner whatsoever;

(d) the defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, assignees, transferres and every person claiming for and on behalf of them may kindly be permanently restrained from causing, executing, creating any document, transaction, paper in respect of the subject propert












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top