Jurisdiction for commercial disputes exceeding specified value lies exclusively with Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, precluding cognizance by civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. Heard Shri Surya Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.10, Meerut in Original Suit No.1310 of 2024 (Karamveer Electronics Ltd. vs. Energo Import and others), whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. of the defendant no.3, CAIXA Bank, has been allowed, and the trial court has returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court by concluding that the suit is relating to commercial transactions between the parties, which is cognizable by the Commercial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the order of trial court is erroneous, since the plaintiff filed a suit for relief of mandatory injunction, which is cognizable by the civil court.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the civil court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff, as such, the trial court erred in returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

5. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing and, thereafter, be decided on merits, in accordance with law.

6. The plaintiff-appellant has annexed the copy of the plaint, which discloses that the plaintiff-company is engaged in manufacturing of transformers and allied equipments in the factory at Meerut, the defendant no.1 is a Govt. of Cuba Undertaking Company created by Resolution of Ministry of Foreign Trade by Resolution No.117 dated 01.12.1977 and is authorized to deal with import of transformers for Cuba.

7. It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant no.2 is the authorized Banker of defendant no.1, who had issued Letter of Credit (LOC) on behalf of defendant no.1 for purchase of goods from plaintiff and the LOCs were to be reimbursed by defendant no.3 by an internal arrangement between defendant nos. 1 to 3.

8. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he was to receive payment of goods supplied by it to defendant no.1 through defendant no. 4 and 5, which are the State Bank of India, Partapur and its Branch situated at Ganga Plaza, Meerut.

9. The plaintiff further averred that he entered into an agreement with defendant no.1 for supply of different types of transformers on 31.03.2020 and it was decided that the plaintiff shall be paid for supply of above transformers by L.O.C. of the Bank i.e. defendant no.3, payable at State Bank of India, Partapur.

10. It was further averred by the plaintiff that vide its Invoices dated 29.11.2020, 12.12.2020, 13.10.2021, 12.11.2021, dispatched the goods to Cuba for defendant no.1 by Ship Consignment, Invoices and Bill of loading etc. and the goods were delivered to defendant no.1 and as agreed previously, defendant no.3 issued L.O.C. and payment advice from defendant no.2 for Euro 940081.88, which is equivalent to Rs.9,11,87,942.36 paise for payment and out of the above amount, Euro 303121.71 was paid by defendant no.3 to plaintiff through State Bank of India, Partapur.

11. It was further averred by the plaintiff that subsequently no payment whatsoever was made to it in spite of repeated reminders and messages. The plaintiff further averred that under the aforesaid circumstances, as per the International Banking Laws, customs and usages, the defendant no. 2 and 3 were under an obligation to fulfil the commitment made by them to defendant no.1, inter alia to the Government of Cuba, but they have miserably failed and have not only caused irreparable l