IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD /FIRST APPEAL NO. 50 of 2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 50 of 2024 ==========================================================

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LIMITED & ORS.

Versus GOPALA BUILDERS THRO HARSHKUMAR SOOD ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SAURABH N SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR D K PUJ(3836) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 07/03/2024 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

Order in First Appeal Captioned appeal, has been filed challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2023 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch District in Special Civil Suit no.29 of 2011 whereby, the suit has been partly allowed. While partly allowing the suit, the respondent – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) has been entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,32,50,033/- together with interest at the rate of 6% from the appellants –

original defendants, jointly and severally.

2. Mr Saurabh N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr D. K. Puj, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the decree passed, is against the non-existent entity i.e. appellant no.2. Moreover, the trial court has clubbed various causes. While inviting attention of this Court to the plaint, it is submitted that work orders were issued in the year 2008 by the appellant no.1 and the respondent was appointed as contractor. Subsequently, with effect from 18.02.2008, the appellant no.2, was appointed as the contractor and the respondent, was appointed as sub-contractor. Similar such work orders, were issued by the appellant no.1 and the appellant no.3. It is submitted that the work orders were issued by the appellant no.1 and appellant no.3 independently; however, consolidated suit has been filed, clubbing the prayers against the appellants. The prayer is against the appellant nos.1 and 2 to pay to the respondent, jointly and severally, the sum of Rs.1,32,50,033/-. Similarly, another prayer is against the appellant nos.2 and 3, jointly and severally, so on and so forth. It is further submitted that such prayers, would not be permissible for, different entities have issued separate work orders. Not only that, even separate invoices were issued by the different entities and therefore, clubbing of the causes, was not permissible.

2.1 It is next submitted that clearly, all the work orders issued, are with respect to the civil work and the nature of dispute, would be governed by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2015”). It is submitted that Clause (c) of Section 2 defines the term commercial disputes and sub-clause (vi) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 includes work namely; “construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders”. Even the respondent, had pointed out before the trial Court by filing application about the contract having the element of commercial dispute. Therefore, the trial court, had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

2.2 It is further submitted that so far as the respondent is concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1932”), the suit would be barred. Section 69 of the Act of 1932 provides for effect of non-registration. Sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act of 1932 states that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Regis