Dismissed

M/S Electronics and Controls v. M/S Wep Peripherals Limited

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/6511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting applications to recall a previous 'no written statement' order under Section 151 CPC. Relying on the Bombay High Court, the court held that allowing late filing after suit transfer would nullify the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

M/S Electronics and Controls Vs M/S Wep Peripherals Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.6511/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.6511 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

M/S. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.29/A, 2^ND PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MRS. VIDYA IYER ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. SHIVARAMA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

M/S. WEP PERIPHERALS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 40/1A, BASAPPA COMPLEX LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. M. SARAVANAN

¶13

SMT. SUNDARI RAMACHANDRAN CHAIRPERSON AND DIRECTOR ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS

¶14

W.P No.6511/2021

¶15

¶16

POWER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ORCHID VIEW APARTMENTS B5, NO.19, RAMANAMAHARISHI ROAD SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 080

¶17

SMT. VIDYA IYER WHOLE - TIME DIRECTOR ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ORCHID VIEW APARTMENTS B5, NO.19, RAMANAMAHARISHI ROAD SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 080

¶18

SRI. RAJARAM RAMAMURTHY MANAGING DIRECTOR ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ORCHID VIEW APARTMENTS B5, NO.19, RAMANAMAHARISHI ROAD SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 080

¶19

SRI. M.S. SIVASHANKARAN DIRECTOR ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ORCHID VIEW APARTMENTS B5, NO.19, RAMANAMAHARISHI ROAD SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 080

¶20

SMT. UMA MAHESHWARI DIRECTOR ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ORCHID VIEW APARTMENTS B5, NO.19, RAMANAMAHARISHI ROAD SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 080

¶21

SRI. K. RAMACHANDRAN TF-2, RATAN APARTMENTS NO.32, MUTHAPPA BLOCK

W.P No.6511/2021

GANGA NAGAR

BANGALORE-560 032

SRI. G.P. RAMACHANDRAN CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN M/S G.P. RAMACHANDRAN AND ASSOCIATES CA NEW #9/ OLD #1 COMMERCE HOUSE, SHOP #208 2^ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD VASANTHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 052

¶27

ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS PVT. LTD., NO.9/21, KBR APARTMENTS KASTURBA NAGAR, ADYAR CHENNAI-600 058

¶28

STATE BANK OF INDIA PEENYA BRANCH B-96, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST STAGE NEAR PEENYA POLICE STATION PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA HEGGANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 058 ... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SHRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K.V. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF COMM O.S. NO. 8994/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT CCH-83 COMMERCIAL JUDGE) BENGALURU CITY AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.01.02.2020 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT CCH-83) IN IA NOS. 17 AND 18 IN COMM O.S. NO.8994/2021

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.07.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

W.P No.6511/2021

ORDER

Petitioner has challenged order dated

¶36

01.02.2020(Annexure-A) passed by the Commercial Court Bengaluru, dismissing it's I.As. No.17 and 18 filed under Section 151 of CPC.

¶37

Shri. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is first defendant in the Commercial Suit. It has filed applications under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 18.09.2013 and to take the written statement on record.

¶38

Shri K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Advocate for first respondent argued opposing the writ petition by relying on SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and others¹ .

¶39

4 . Briefly stated the facts of the case are, on 16.12.2011, first respondent has filed O.S.No.8994/2011

¶40

1 (2019)12 SCC 210.

¶41

W.P No.6511/2021

¶42

¶43

for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,23,20,000/- together with interest @24% p.a against petitioner-defendant No.1. The petitioner/first defendant was litigating before various for a, as narrated in para-9 of the impugned order which reads

¶44

as follows:

¶45

"9. It is necessary to note the dates of events,

¶46

which are as under:

¶47

Sl. No	Date	Event
1	16.2.2010	Defendant No.1 filed petition under Sec.9 of
		A&C Act 1996 in AA No.239/2010
2	30.3.2010	AA No.239/2010 dismissed with the observation that MOU does not contain any arbitration clause.
3	16.12.2011	Plaintiff has filed this suit
4	31.1.2012	Defendant No.1 filed petition under Sec.11 of A&C Act 1996 in CMP No.15/2012
5	16.10.2012	Defendant No.1 has appeared in this suit through its learned advocate
6	20.11.2012	CMP No.15/2012 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
7	30.11.2012	Defendant No.1 filed SLP (C) No.36986/2012
		before Hon'ble Apex court.

¶48

¶49

W.P No.6511/2021

¶50

8	28.1.2013	Defendant No.1 filed IA No.1 under Sec.8 of A&C Act 1996 in this suit
9	12.7.2016	SLP(C) No.36986/2012 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
10	13.12.2017	This suit was transferred to CCH.39, which was then designated as Commercial Court
11	24.1.2017	With a delay of 1495 days, defendant No.1 filed Review Petition in R.P.No.38/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
12	13.6.2018	IA No.1 filed in this suit under Sec.8 of A&C Act, was dismissed
13	22.8.2019	R.P.No.38/2017 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
14	4.12.2019	Defendant No.1 has filed these IA Nos.17 & 18 with written statement

¶51

Petitioner has filed the instant applications for

¶52

recalling the order dated 18.09.2013 and to take the written statement on record.

¶53

Shri Srinivas Raghavan placing reliance on para

¶54

28 in Dilip Choudhury Vs. Pratishruti Projects Limited and Others² submitted that after adverting to the decision in

¶55

2 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 2346

¶56

W.P No.6511/2021

¶57

¶58

SCG Contract, the Calcutta High Court has held that Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015³ reflects cause of justice in permitting the defendant to file written statement.

¶59

In reply, relying on Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Limited and others Vs. Honest Derivatives Private Limited⁴ . Shri. K.G. Raghavan submitted that the facts of this case are similar in the case of Raj Process Equipm ent and therefore petitioner is not entitled for discretionary relief in the hands of this Court.

¶60

It was also argued by Shri. K.G. Raghavan that written statements have been filed on behalf of the directors of the Company and therefore no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

¶61

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

¶62

3 'The Act' for short

¶63

4 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 12063

¶64

W.P No.6511/2021

¶65

¶66

Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner has

¶67

filed the instant applications in 2019 with a prayer to recall order passed in 2013 that written statement was not filed. The facts are identical as in the case of Raj Process Equipment . Having considered the SCG Contract, Bombay High Court has held as follows:

¶68

"31. In the backdrop of the law, as is settled, if the contentions of the petitioners is accepted, that even if the suit has been transferred, after the "no WS" order is passed and when no application is pending, would not preclude the Commercial Court to set aside the "no WS" order and permit filing of the written statement, this would completely nullify the intent and object of the legislature in introducing the commercial Courts Act. The Commercial Court would then be bestowed with the status of a "non-commercial Court", which is impermissible in law."

¶69

Having heard the learned Senior Advocates on both sides and perused the authorities, I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶70

No costs.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

M/S Electronics and Controls v. M/S Wep Peripherals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Electronics and Controls v. M/S Wep Peripherals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fishermen Development and Vs State of Karnataka

K R Seetharama Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C S Padmanabha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J B Surana Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Sri H M Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kama Reddy

R Rajkumar Vs Smt Girija Rajgopal