IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Civil Revision Petition No.3519 of 2023 &

C.M.P.No.22014 of 2023 Sivasubramaniam ...Petitioner Vs.

1. Shri Dhanalakshmi Spinntex Pvt., Ltd., having registered office at S.F.No.226/3, Avinashi Road, N.H.47, karumathampatti, Coimbatore – 641 659 rep. By its Managing Director, Thiru.C.Natarajan

2. Shri Dhanalakshmi Green Energy India Pvt., Ltd., Having registered office at S.F.No.226/3, Avinashi Road, N.H.47, karumathampatti, Coimbatore – 641 659 rep. By its Managing Director, Thiru.C.Natarajan

3. Shri Dhanalakshmi Exim A partnership Firm having registered office at S.F.No.226/3, Avinashi Road, N.H.47, Karumathampatti, Coimbatore – 641 659 rep. By its Managing Director, Thiru.C.Natarajan

4. C.Natarajan

5. N.Leelavathy

6. S.Sujitha Siddharth

7. N.Navanya

8. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Coimbatore Main Branch No.1432, Ground floor, Akshya Orbit 11, Trichy Road, Coimbatore – 641 018

9. Sivachandran Assistant Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Coimbatore Main Branch, No.1432, ground floor, Akshya Orbit 11, Trichy road, Coimbatore – 641 018

10. Vinoth @ Vivek kumar

11. Kannan

12. Kalaivani

13. Puspharani ...Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to set aside the docket order of the Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore made in C.O.S.No.88 of 2023 dated 18.07.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Thangavel For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for R1

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed to set aside the docket order of the Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore made in C.O.S.No.88 of 2023 dated 18.07.2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Originally, the respondents 1 to 7 had filed a suit before the Commercial Court, Coimbatore to direct the petitioner and respondents 8 to 13 to jointly and severely pay a sum of Rs.6,43,67,112/- to the 1^st respondent together with interest and to direct the 8^th respondent / 1^st defendant to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,00,000 towards damages. Pending suit, the petitioner / 2^nd defendant filed a memo stating that fraud, misappropriation and cheating as alleged by the respondents 1 to 7 / Plaintiffs does not come under the definition of Commercial Dispute as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act']. The above suit based on such allegations of fraud and misappropriation are not maintainable before the Commercial Court and prayed to reject the plaint as not maintainable. The trial court by its docket order dated 18.07.2023 had rejected the memo filed by the petitioner and retained the suit in commercial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with this present Revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the cause of action projected by the respondents 1 to 7 / plaintiffs do not satisfy any of the enumerations under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 so as to bring the lis within the ambit of 'Commercial Dispute'. Further, the Commercial Court failed to consider that a claim arises out of a fraud or misrepresentation could not in any event be termed as a contractual claim or a dispute arising out of ordinary transactions so as to bring the dispute within the definition of 'Commercial dispute', as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is a claim against the 1^st defendant / 8^th respondent, the petitioner is not a necessary or proper party to the suit nor this petitioner does not have a contractual liability towards the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs had not even averred in the plaint that they had made attempts for a pre-institution mediation before instituting the suit and as such, the suit is bad and not maintainable. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has