2018 Supreme(P&H) 3684
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Ohm Forex Services Limited - Appellant
Versus
Icici Bank Limited And Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1281 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2018
Nikhil Saras, Adv., H.S. Sethi, Adv., Sandeep Suri, Adv.
The valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction does not change with the accumulation of interest, and the application for transfer to the Commercial Court was declined.
Headnote:
Banking Dispute - Commercial Jurisdiction - [Section 151 CPC, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC] - The court discussed the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, the application for additional evidence, and the transfer of the appeal to the Commercial Court. The court found that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction does not change with the accumulation of interest, and therefore, the application for transfer to the Commercial Court was declined. The application for additional evidence was required to be decided along with the main appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit against the defendants for illegal charges and sought declaration and refund of the excess amount charged along with interest. The trial court partly decreed the suit, and the appeal was filed by the defendants before the District Judge, Chandigarh. The dispute arose regarding the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the transfer of the appeal to the Commercial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction does not change with the accumulation of interest, and therefore, the application for transfer to the Commercial Court was declined. The application for additional evidence was required to be decided along with the main appeal. The revision petition was found to be devoid of merits and dismissed.
Issues: Valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, application for additional evidence, transfer of the appeal to the Commercial Court
Ratio Decidendi: The valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction does not change with the accumulation of interest. The application for transfer to the Commercial Court was declined. The application for additional evidence was required to be decided along with the main appeal.
Final Decision: The revision petition was found to be devoid of merits and dismissed.
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the valuation of a suit for the purpose of jurisdiction does not change with the accumulation of interest over time. Consequently, the application for transferring the matter to a specialized commercial court, based on the increased value due to interest, was declined. Additionally, the court held that the valuation at the time of filing the suit remains the relevant criterion for jurisdiction, and subsequent interest accrual does not alter this valuation (!) [23000729110005][23000729110008].
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 20.01.2017, 25.01.2017and 06.02.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
2. Petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration, declaring the debit entries, whereby defendants had charged arbitrarily and illegally exchange margin rate in excess of norms to be illegal, null and void. Further declaration was sought that the defendants are authorized to charge commission as per norms irrespective of quantity of inflow of Great Britain Pound (GBP) per day and consequently, for refund of recovery of amount as claimed in the plaint being the principal amount of the charges deducted in excess and further amount on account of interest which was illegally and malafidely charged by the defendants. Recovery of the amount was also sought on account of interest pertaining to the delayed transfer of funds in the account of the plaintiff along with interest.
3. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2015 partly decreed the suit, thereby deciding point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and point No.2 against the plaintiff. The suit was partly decreed with proportionate costs. The debit entries made by the defendant/Bank in the account of the plaintiff in excess of 0.07 paise per US Dollar were declared null and void and as a consequence thereof, defendants were directed to refund excess amount charged along with interest @ 9% per annum payable from the date when the excess amount was charged in the account to the date of suit. A revised account in this regard was ordered to be prepared by the defendants and thereafter, total amount excess charged and interest so calculated was ordered to be paid within a period of 30 days. In case, the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, plaintiff was held entitled to the interest @ of 6% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit to the date of realization of the same.
4. Appeal was filed by the defendants before the District Judge, Chandigarh. Cross objections were filed by the plaintiff. The execution was filed by the decree holder before the Executing Court. In the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the cross objector filed an application for additional evidence for seeking an expert opinion from the State Bank of India on the issue of measurement of 11 transactions amounting to Rs. 88.80 lacs.
5. On 20.01.2017, the Lower Appellate Court passed the order to the effect that reply to the application for leading evidence was filed by the appellant therein. One more application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the respondent was filed to which appellant sought to file reply. The case was adjourned for argument in the main appeal and the applications were to be disposed of along with main appeal. One more application was filed for transfer of the appeal as well as cross objections to the Commercial Court. The case was adjourned to 25.01.2017 for remaining arguments. On 25.01.2017, the Court proceeded to determine as to whether the dispute falls within the ambit of commercial dispute or not.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Lower Appellate Court that the amount involved in the dispute was in excess of Rs. 1 crore and therefore, the application moved by the applicant/respondent for transfer of the matter to the Commercial Court having jurisdiction to deal with the commercial dispute be allowed. The Court considered the arguments of the parties and found that the value of the suit cannot be denied on the asking of the parties. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff and the same was valued for less than Rs. 1 crore as per para No.26 of the suit which was to the following effect:-
"That the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 195/- as far as relief of declaration is concerned, on which Court fee of Rs. 19.50 is affixed on the pla