##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 02.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010358162025 + TR.P.(C.) 98/2025 MANOJ KAKKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate.

versus M/S KIAASA RETAIL PVT LTD AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nishant Mittal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, $~33, seeking transfer of the Civil Suit being CIV.DJ 530/2020, Civil Suit titled as “Manoj Kakkar v. M/s. Kiaasa Retail and Anr.” pending before the learned District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, learned Trial Court to the concerned Court of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, learned Transferee Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit that the Civil Suit is presently pending before the learned Trial Court and is at the stage of Plaintiff's evidence.

1 CPC

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents objects to the present transfer on the ground that the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC would not apply to Commercial Suits.

4. He furthermore submits that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, CC Act prescribes specific requirements for institution and conduct of a commercial suit, including filing of the plaint in the prescribed manner and furnishing of a Statement of Truth, and since the aforesaid requirements have not been complied with in the present case, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC cannot be permitted to override the provisions of the CC Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the Judgments of this Court in Sherawali Developers LLP v. M/s Majesty Homes & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3963 and Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 143 and submits that the objection raised by the Respondents is no longer res integra and open for consideration.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and, with their able assistance, has perused the material on record and considered the Judgments handed over across the Bar.

7. It is noted that the aforesaid objections raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents have already been considered and discussed in detail by this Court in Namita Gupta (supra) and in Sherawali Developers LLP (supra).

8. In Namita Gupta (supra), this Court held that Section 24 of the CPC continues to operate in respect of suits relating to commercial disputes of specified value and that the requirements prescribed under the CC Act do not, by themselves, take away the jurisdiction of this Court to transfer such proceedings. The relevant observations in the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:

“63. As noted hereinabove, Section 16 of the Act provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply to any Suit in respect of Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value, subject to the amended provisions thereof as provided in the Schedule appended to the Act. Section 24 of the CPC is not a provision which has been amended by the said Schedule. It, therefore, continues to apply in full force to a Suit in respect of a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value. If the Legislature wanted to take away this power from the Court, it would have expressly stated so by deleting the said provision in the Schedule to the Act; it did not do so. There is also no implied exclusion of this power, as this power, in no manner, is in conflict with any provisions of the Act.

64. As far as non-compliance with Section 12A of the Act is concerned, the Transferee Court shall consider the said objection on merits upon the transfer of the Suit. The transfer of the Suit does not, in any manner, affect the right of the defendant to contend that the Suit has been filed without any cause of action or is otherwise barred by any provision of law