IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prasant Kumar, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
M/S Pathik Software Education Private Limited and another – Respondents
First Appeal Defective No. 218 of 2022, First Appeal No. - 467 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. both appeals relate to the same judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. factual background of the lease agreement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. non-compliance led to cancellation of lease. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. defendant's objections regarding jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. defendant's argument on lack of compliance. (Para 14 , 20) |
| 6. commercial court's jurisdiction topics. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's findings on commercial dispute definitions. (Para 19 , 29) |
| 8. commercial courts act's implications on disputes. (Para 32 , 44) |
| 9. conclusion on jurisdiction and appeal outcomes. (Para 70 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
1. We have heard Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Sri A.B. Singhal, learned counsel for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority; Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.O.V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for M/s Pathik Software Education Private Limited and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for M/s Innova A.M. Tech L.L.P., Gautambuddh Nagar.
2. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 28.3.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Suit (Comm) No.167 of 2021 (M/s Pathik Software Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. CEO New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and two others).
3. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that both appeals may be disposed of at this stage without calling for original record as the relevant records alongwith the pleadings are already appended alongwith the appeals and they have no objection, in case these appeals are decided without summoning the record.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment.
5. The brief facts, which led to the present situation, are that M/s Pathik Software Education Private Limited [plaintiff company], Pandav Nagar, which is plaintiff in the suit, now referred as plaintiff company, is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at E-52, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092 and it is engaged in the business of education etc. The plaintiff company was allotted a land bearing no.30 area 2100 sq. mtrs. situated at Sector 142 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. on 17.02.2006 by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority[defendant authority], which is defendant no.1 in the suit, referred as defendant authority and the lease deed of the plot in question was executed on 19.01.2007.
6. The relevant clauses of the lease deed are as follows:-
This lease deed made on this 19th day of January in the year Two Thousand Seven between New Okhla Industrial Development Authority a body corporate constituted under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act 1976 (U.P. Act No.6 of 1976) hereinafter called the Lessor which expression shall unless the context does not so admit include its successors of the first part and M/s Pathik Software Education Pvt. Ltd., a company within the meaning of Company Act, 1956 having its registered office E-52, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92, through its Director Smt. Brijesh Singh W/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o E-292A, Sector-22, Noida, Distt. G.B. Nagar, U.P., hereinafter called Lessee which expression shall unless the context does not so admit includes its successors, administrators, representatives and permitted assignees of the other part.
..
NOW THE LEASE DEED WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:
1. That in consideration of total premium of Rs.79,25,400.00 (Rupees Seventy Nine Lac Twenty Five thousand Four hundred only) towards the land premium calculated @ Rs.3774/- per sq. mtrs out of which 30% i.e. 23,77,620.00 (Rupees Twenty Three lac Seventy Seven thousand Six hundred Twenty only) has been paid by the lessee to the lessor the receipt where of the lessor hereby acknowledges and balance Rs.55,47,780.00 (Rupees Fifty Five lac Forty Seven thousand Seven hundred Eighty only) shall be paid to the le
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP & another
Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal and another
Corp of the City of Victoria v Bishop of Vancouver Island
Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors.
Harbhajan Singh vs. Press Council of India
Messrs. Trojan & Co. Ltd. vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar
A dispute regarding a lease for commercial purposes qualifies as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, necessitating the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.
A lease dispute regarding immovable property used for commercial purposes qualifies as a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allowing for a maintainable suit.
Lease of land converted for petrol station, under construction, qualifies as 'commercial dispute' under CC Act, including gestation phase.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict construction of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the requirement to consider the nature of the proposed amendment before ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.