Partly allowed

Coastal Builders, Rep. by Its Prop., Vishwas Dessai and Anr., v. Bharat Developers and Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Pradip Singh Birring.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2023WP/23/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa, via an oral order with consent, quashed two impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Principal District Judge, South Goa. The judgment requires the lower court to first determine the competent Commercial Court based on relevant notifications and then decide if the petitioner is entitled to file a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 03.07.2018 and 03.11.2018 were quashed; matter remanded to Principal District Judge, South Goa to determine competent Commercial Court and petitioner's right to file written stat

Coastal Builders, Rep. by Its Prop., Vishwas Dessai and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

11-WP-23-2019.DOC

¶2

Niti

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.23 OF 2019

¶5

COASTAL BUILDERS, REP. BY ITS PROP., VISHWAS DESSAI AND ANR.

¶6

….PETITIONERS

¶7

Versus

¶8

BHARAT DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRADIP SINGH BIRRING. ….RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr C.A. Ferreira, Mr Nehal Govekar and Mr S. Kamulkar, Advocates for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr S.G. Desai, Senior Advocate, with Mr Pavithran A.V., Advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

¶12

DATE : 23^rd FEBRUARY 2023

¶13

ORAL ORDER :

¶14

1. Heard Mr C.A. Ferreira learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr S.G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate, who appears along with Mr Pavithran A.V. for the respondent.

¶15

2. After Mr Ferreira concluded his submissions, Mr Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submitted that under the Notification dated 03.11.2016, issued under Section 3 of the

¶16

Page 1 of 4 23^rd February 2023

¶17

11-WP-23-2019.DOC

¶18

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (the said Act), the Government of
Goa had constituted the Court of District Judge – 1, South Goa at
Margao, to be the Commercial Court for the District of South Goa.
He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders dated 03.07.2018
and 03.11.2018, made by the Principal District Judge, South Goa at
Margao, were without jurisdiction.

¶19

3. Mr Desai, without prejudice to his contention that on merits, the petitioner was not entitled to file any written statement, submitted that the impugned orders could be set aside and the competent Commercial Court could be directed to decide the issue as to whether any additional time could be granted to the petitioner to file a written statement in the matter. In the alternate, he submitted that the impugned orders could be set aside and the matter remanded to the Principal District Judge, South Goa, to decide whether he had the jurisdiction to function as a Commercial Court given the Notification dated 03.11.2016.

¶20

4. Mr Dessai offered that if the Principal District Judge concluded that he has jurisdiction, then the further issue of whether time should be granted to the petitioners to file a written statement could also be decided by the Principal District Judge, subject to the right of the respondent to challenge such an assumption of jurisdiction. If, however, the Principal District Judge were to conclude that the matter

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

23rd February 2023

¶23

11-WP-23-2019.DOC

¶24

was required to be made over to the District Judge – 1, or any other
competent Commercial Court, then the issue of whether the
petitioners should be allowed to file a written statement or such right
stands forfeited could be decided by such competent Commercial
Court. Mr Desai also submitted that all parties' contentions may be
kept open.

¶25

5. Mr C.A. Ferreira, without prejudice to his contention that the impugned orders were vulnerable on merits, submitted that the petitioner would have no difficulties in adopting the above course of action suggested by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent.

¶26

6. Accordingly, with consent, the impugned orders dated 03.07.2018 and 03.11.2018 are quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remanded to the Principal District Judge, South Goa, to consider, interalia, the following issues:

¶27

(a) In light of Notifications dated 03.11.2016 and
05.05.2020, which is the competent Commercial
Court to try Special Civil Suit (Commercial)
No.3/2018?

¶28

(b) Depending on the decision on (a) above, whether
on merits, the petitioner is entitled to additional time
to file a written statement or such right stands
forfeited given the several decisions both parties rely
on.

¶29

(c) If the Principal District Judge decides that the
competent Commercial Court is some other Court

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

23rd February 2023

¶32

11-WP-23-2019.DOC

¶33

other than Principal District Judge, then the Principal
District Judge to make over/transfer the proceedings
in Special Civil Suit (Commercial) No.3/2018 to such
Commercial Court which shall then decide whether
the petitioner should be granted some reasonable time
to file the written statement or whether such right
should stand forfeited given the several decisions relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶34

(d) The two Counsels propose that for deciding the
issue of the competent Commercial Court, cognizance
should be taken of not only the provisions of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 but also Notifications
dated 03.11.2016 and 05.05.2020.

¶35

7. Accordingly, as proposed by the Counsels, without prejudice, both the impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remanded in the first instance to the Court of Principal District Judge, South Goa, to be dealt with as above. The parties are to now appear before the Principal District Judge on 06.03.2023 at 2.30 pm. and file an authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

8. The petition is disposed of with consent in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs. Liberty to apply.

¶37

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶38

Digitally signed by NITI K NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2023.02.27 14:37:15 +05'30'

¶39

Page 4 of 4 23^rd February 2023

Coastal Builders, Rep. by Its Prop., Vishwas Dessai and Anr., v. Bharat Developers and Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Pradip Singh Birring.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Coastal Builders, Rep. by Its Prop., Vishwas Dessai and Anr., v. Bharat Developers and Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Pradip Singh Birring.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Kaushik and 2 Ors., Vs Piyush Property Management (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Prakhakar Nerulkar and 3 Ors.

Chika Gaude and Anr., Vs Saraswati Madhav Desai and 4 Ors.

Gurpreet Nagra., Vs Laju Menon @ Laju Menon Nagra and 2 Ors.

Resources International, Rep. by Its Partner, Dipak M. Rajani Vs John Fillipe Costa and 2 Ors.

Mary Pereira, Rep. by Her Poa by Menino Pereira and 6 Ors., Vs Anant Vengurlekar @ Babi Vengurlekar (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs.

Sanjyet Bhandari Vs Ramesh Gaudar and Anr.