IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1932 OF 2025 Between:

M/s. Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Regd. Office at Sy.No.342, Plot No.135B, ALEAP Industrial Estate, Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-55, Reptd. by its Director Rama Krishna Goulikar, S/o. Ashok Kumar, Aged about 35 yrs.

Petitioner VERSUS Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Authorised Signatory, Having Regd. Office at Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Plot No.8, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110 025.

Respondent ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 22.09.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Her Ladyship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No _________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J * THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1932 OF 2025

ORDER:

% Dated 22.09.2025 # Between:

M/s. Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Regd. Office at Sy.No.342, Plot No.135B, ALEAP Industrial Estate, Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-55, Reptd. by its Director Rama Krishna Goulikar, S/o. Ashok Kumar, Aged about 35 yrs.

Petitioner VERSUS Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Authorised Signatory, Having Regd. Office at Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Plot No.8, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110 025.

Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel ^ Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Istiaq Hussain, learned counsel < GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. C.R.P.No.297 of 2025 2. C.R.P.No.1749 of 2023

3. (2020) 15 SCC 585 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1932 OF 2025 Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. Istiaq Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of an order dated 12.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.266 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.15 of 2023 by the Commercial Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (‘Trial Court’). By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in a Suit (C.O.S.No.15 of 2023) filed by the respondent for recovery of a total amount of Rs.1,03,58,961/- consisting of the principal amount of Rs.44,53,396/- along with interest at 18% per annum, along with damages. The petitioner filed I.A.No.266 of 2023 in the said Suit for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Suit was barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, more specifically under the provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the

2015 Act’)

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant argues that a Suit must satisfy the requirement of ‘Specified Value’ as defined under section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act for being classified as a Commercial Suit. According to counsel, the specified value falls below Rs.1 crore which would be evident from the prayers being divided into three separate segments consisting of the principal amount of Rs.44,53,396/-, interest amount of Rs.58,58,961/- and total amounting to Rs.1,03,58,961/-.

4. Counsel urges that this form of segregation is not permissible for computing the specified value of the Suit for the purpose of crossing the Rs.1 crore threshold. Counsel argues that the subsequent reduction of the ‘specified value’ by way of an Amendment to Rs.3 lakh may not be applicable to the State of T