Globe Roadways Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sri Tilak Raj Mangalam Vs Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman, Hinoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 156 of 2024

Globe Roadways Pvt. Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Thana Chowk, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O., P.S. & District Ramgarh, through its Director Sri Tital Raj Mangalam, aged about 74 years, son of Late R.D. Agarwal, resident of Nehru Road, P.O., P.S. & District Ramgarh

¶4

… … Plaintiff/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, through its Chairman, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶7

Managing Director, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶8

Secretary, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶9

General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, Lalpania, P.O. & P.S. TTPS Lalpania, District Bokaro … … Defendants/Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv.

¶13

¶14

07/5^th February 2025

¶15

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶16

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2024 and decree dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Bokaro in Commercial Suit No. 01 of 2022, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

¶17

3. Initially one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 736 of 2025 was filed by the respondents raising a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal by stating that the appeal would lie before the Commercial Court at Bokaro in terms of the provisions of Commercial

¶18

1

¶19

Courts Act, 2015 read with the notification issued thereunder. It has been asserted that the judgment and decree has been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) I-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Bokaro in Commercial Suit No. 01 of 2022 and the appellate court is the designated court of the district judge of the district of Bokaro and therefore the first appeal filed directly before this Court is not maintainable.

¶20

4. In response, an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1472 of 2025 has been filed under Order VII Rule 10-A read with Section 107 of CPC wherein a prayer has been made to allow the memorandum of appeal to be returned to the appellant along with court fees for being presented before the proper court, namely, District Judge, Bokaro. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that instead of District Judge, Bokaro, it may be mentioned that the appeal be filed before the Commercial Appellate Court in the district of Bokaro. He has submitted that Commercial Appellate Court in the district of Bokaro has been constituted. A further prayer has been made to fix a date of presentation of the memo of appeal before the competent court and also fix a date for appearance of the parties in the court, so that the appeal is ultimately disposed of without wasting any further time. He has submitted that the respondents have already appeared before this court so there may not be any impediment for the respondents to appear before the appellate court in terms of the order which may be passed by this Court.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made by the appellant through I.A. No. 1472 of 2025. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute between the parties that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court and the appeal would lie before the Commercial Appellate Court in the district of Bokaro. The valuation of the commercial suit was 32,05,035/and therefore the case was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) I, Bokaro being Commercial Suit No. 01 of 2022 whose

¶22

2

¶23

appellate court is the Commercial Appellate Court in the district itself. A reference has also been made to the notification dated 08.02.2024. This court is of the considered view that this appeal is not maintainable before this court and is maintainable before the Commercial Appellate Court in the district itself.

¶24

7. In view of the aforesaid, office is directed to return the memo of appeal along with court fees to the learned counsel for the appellant upon submission of a true copy of the memo of appeal and its enclosures by the appellant to be retained by the office for record.

¶25

8. The appellant is at liberty to present the memo of appeal with its enclosures and court fees so returned before the Commercial Appellate Court, Bokaro on 04.03.2025 and the respondents shall also enter appearance before the learned appellate court on 04.03.2025.

¶26

9. Upon their appearance, the concerned appellate court is directed to do the needful and proceed in accordance with law. 10. During the court proceedings, both the parties are put to notice with respect to the date of appearance before the learned Commercial Appellate Court, Bokaro on 04.03.2025.

¶27

11. It is just to put on record that the date of filing of this appeal as recorded in the order-sheet is 01.07.2024.

¶28

12. I.A. No. 1472 of 2025 is hereby allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

13. I.A. No. 736 of 2025 filed by the respondents asserting that this appeal is not maintainable before this court is allowed and it is held that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

¶30

14. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

15. Let this order be immediately forwarded to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Mukul

¶34

3

Globe Roadways Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sri Tilak Raj Mangalam v. Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman, Hinoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Globe Roadways Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sri Tilak Raj Mangalam v. Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman, Hinoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Workmen Represented by Blue Star Employees Union Jamshedpur Thr Its Gen Secretary MD Wahabuddin Vs the Management of Ms Blue Star Ltd. through Its Vice President Regional Manager

Idrish Ansari and Ors. Vs Mahammad Khurshid Ansari

Parmeshwar Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Kumar Mahato And Anr. Vs Pustam Mahato And Ors.

Bhuglu Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented by the Deputy Commissioner

The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Vs Smt Mohini Devi