Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Uber9 Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Chairman / Principal Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Chennai & Others – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 405 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2021
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Commercial Courts (Pre- Institution Mediation and settlement ) Rules, 2018 – Rule 3 – Promotion – Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Docket order of the Hon'ble Chairman / District Judge in returning the Mediation Application filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority is contrary to law, manifestly erroneous and unjust and in any event, it is liable to be set aside – Case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, vide its order held that Schemes of M/s PACL Limited were in the nature of collective investment schemes and interalia directed the PACL Ltd., its promoters and its Directors to wind up all of its collective investment schemes and refund the monies collected by it under its schemes with returns which were due to its investors / depositors. – The refunds were to be disbursed, as per the terms of offer within a period of three months from the date of the order. – Aggrieved by the said order, M/s PACL appealed before the Securities Appellate Tribunal and by order authority dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the 2nd respondent. – In consequence, M/s PACL filed appeals in C.A. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said court had constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice (Retd) Mr.R.M.Lodha (Former Chief Justice of India) for disposing of the land purchased by the said company, in order to pay the depositors by way of sale proceeds, who have invested their funds in M/s PACL for purchase of land under the alleged scheme.
Finding of court: Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if a contract confers juridsiction on a court that has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the petition / application, the jurisdiction of other courts / forum which is the proper court / forum to try the questions is not barred and such a clause cannot be pleaded, as a bar to an application brought before the District Legal Services Authority, is not acceptable, because the Clause (S) of the work order clearly mentions that“Any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only” and the plain reading itself would show that the said dispute has to be raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court only and not before this Court. – It is also seen that the petitioner has filed two applications, viz., I.A. seeking impleadment/invervention of the petitioner herein and the other one is, I.A. was filed seeking clarification to the effect that Clause(S) of the work order, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not precluded from pursuing its claims against the Ld. Committee, that being the case, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the jurisdiction vests and this Court is not inclined to interfere in such matter and the same is hereby dismissed.
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Docket order of the Hon'ble Chairman / District Judge in returning the Mediation Application filed on 28.11.2019 under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority is contrary to law, manifestly erroneous and unjust and in any event, it is liable to be set aside.)
1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the Docket order of the Hon'ble Chairman / District Judge in returning the Mediation Application filed on 28.11.2019 under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, on the ground that the same is contrary to law, manifestly erroneous and unjust.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, vide its order dated 22.08.2014 held that Schemes of M/s PACL Limited were in the nature of collective investment schemes and interalia directed the PACL Ltd., its promoters and its Directors to wind up all of its collective investment schemes and refund the monies collected by it under its schemes with returns which were due to its investors / depositors. The refunds were to be disbursed, as per the terms of offer within a period of three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, M/s PACL appealed before the Securities Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as SAT] and by order dated 12.08.2015, the authority dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the 2nd respondent. In consequence, M/s PACL filed appeals in C.A.Nos.13319 and 13394 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said court had constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice (Retd) Mr.R.M.Lodha (Former Chief Justice of India) for disposing of the land purchased by the said company, in order to pay the depositors by way of sale proceeds, who have invested their funds in M/s PACL for purchase of land under the alleged scheme.
3. Subsequently, the said Committee in order to implement the said directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, decided to collect and collate the claims of all such depositors and investors throughout India, by designing a website to receive the details and invite claims from the multitude of depositors scattered across the country, so as to be verified with the PACL database as provided by M/s PACL to the committee. The committee floated tenders towards the said purpose. The petitioner having offered the most competitive quotation and having met all the evaluation matrix criteria as well as the technical expertise, was awarded with the contract vide Work Order No.JMRLC/PACL/No.2917 dated 17.10.2017 with general terms and conditions.
4. In continuance, a legal notice was sent by the petitioner on 18.12.2018 for recovery of dues payable to the petitioner for the services rendered in the matter of PACL Limited narrating various facts. Further, the petitioner has filed Form-1-Mediation Application under Rule 3(1) narrating the details of dispute and the said application was dismissed, hence the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the fastest growing technology development companies, specializing in incorporation, registrations and filings, accounting, documentation and compliances and a leading innovator in the field of legal and accounting software. The petitioner submitted its quotation for designing and implementing the said project. The petitioner having offered the most competitive quotation and having met all the evaluation criteria, the work order dated 17.10.2017 was allotted to the petitioner.
6. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work order was unconditional and mandated that the petitioner to take into account all the claims/ applications / submissions placed before it. Further, mo
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
