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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Muhammed Illiyas – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 194 of 2022
Decided On : 16-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K.John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan
For the Respondent: P. Thomas Geeverghese., Adv.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of exhausting the statutory remedy provided under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before approaching the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Commercial Courts Act - Jurisdiction - Section 15(2) and (5) - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to transfer a suit to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court below dismissed the application, and the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners should have sought remedy under Section 15(5) of the Act instead of approaching the High Court directly. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the statutory remedy provided under the Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after the dismissal of their application to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, emphasizing that judicial interference beyond the procedure established under the enactment should be avoided. The court highlighted the need to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioners to move the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

JUDGMENT :

The original petition is filed to set aside the order in I.A 5/2021 in O.S.407/2017 (Ext.P3) passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the above suit, filed by the respondents, inter-alia, for a decree to direct the petitioners to give vacant possession of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to them. The plaint schedule property was initially leased by late Sri.T.P.Marakkar, the father of the respondents 1 to 5 and the husband of the 6th respondent. There were earlier rounds of litigation between the parties, which finally culminated in RSA No.145/2012 of this Court. The respondents have filed Ext.P1 plaint before the above Court. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'Act') was notified by the Government of Kerala, in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Act, on 24.2.2020 in the official gazette on 5.3.2020. On the publication of the notification, the civil court’s jurisdiction to try the suit involving a commercial dispute stands ousted. As the suit was not transferred as envisaged under Section 15 (2) of the Act, the petitioners had filed Ext.P2 application before the court below to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court of the District. The court below, without considering the application in its proper perspective, has dismissed Ext.P2 application by Ext.P3 order.

3. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 reads as follows:

    “8. It is to be noted that the petrol pump situated in the disputed land is operated by the petitioner Company and not a dealer operated pump. The said fact is not disputed. If that be so, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that they have no interest in the business of the petitioner Company. The father of the respondents only leased out the premises to the petitioner Company for running a petrol pump for an agreed premium of lease per month.

9. As per section 2(c) (vii) of the Act, only the immovable properties exclusively used for the purpose of commerce and trade will come under the purview of the said section. In this suit, the court fee paid by the respondents is under Section 43(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for declaring the termination of the lease. Hence, I am of the view that the dispute involved in the suit will not come under the purview of Section 2(c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as contended by the petitioner so as to transfer the same to the Commercial Court. These points are accordingly answered against the petitioners.

10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.”

4. Heard; V. Bharath Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Thomas Geeverghese, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 6.

5. The petitioners had filed Ext.P2 application to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court, alleging that after the coming into force of the Act in the State, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit falling under the Act stood ousted.

6. Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, reads as follows:

    “15. Transfer of pending cases- (1) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division.

(2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any Civil Court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court.

Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).

(3) Where any suit or application, including an

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