Quashed

Saurabh Mittal S/O. Sh. Avinash Mittal v. Anant Publications

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2018CW/24593/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ application challenged the impugned order transferring a civil suit valued at Rs. 1,200 to the Commercial Court. The High Court quashed the transfer, noting the suit did not meet the 'Specified Value' threshold under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and restored the proceedings to the Additional District Judge.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order transferring the suit to Commercial Court dated 6th October, 2018, is quashed and the suit is restored to the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur.

Saurabh Mittal S/O. Sh. Avinash Mittal Vs Anant… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 24593/2018

¶3

Saurabh Mittal S/o. Sh. Avinash Mittal, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste- Mahajan, R/o. 1-Na-12, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Anant Publications, Through Its Proprietor Sh. Naresh Chand Jain 213, 1St Floor, Radha Damodar Gali, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. D. Bansal Mr. Ashwani Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Order

REPORTABLE

14/11/2018

Aggrieved of the order dated 6^th October, 2018, made by the Additional District Judge No. 9, suo moto transferring the suit proceedings to Commercial Court, Jaipur Metropolitan Division, Jaipur; the petitioner has instituted the present writ application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the civil suit instituted by the petitioner is for ‘ Infringement of Trade Mark’ and ‘ Passing off Action’ . It is further contended that the valuation of suit was specifically detailed out in the plaint as Rs. 1200/-; yet the matter was transferred to Commercial Court aforesaid.

¶14

Reference has also been made to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, published on 1^st January, 2016, wherein Section 2(c)(xxii)(i) defines “Specified Value”, as to value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-24593/2018]

¶17

(which shall not be less than three lakh rupees) or such higher value, as notified by the Central Government.

¶18

Thus, according to learned counsel the suit proceedings ought not to have been transferred to Commercial Court. Referring to order dated 20^th August, 2018, issued by Registrar (Rules), of Rajasthan High Court; it is contended that all the commercial disputes having value of more than Rs. 5 Lacs which are pending the regular courts were be transferred by the regular courts to respective Commercial Courts, established in the State of Rajasthan.

¶19

Hence, in view of the above, the order made by the Court below transferring the suit proceedings to Commercial Court is absolutely illegal and invalid.

¶20

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tank, Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, did not dispute the factual so also legal position.

¶21

In view of the above, impugned order dated 6^th October, 2018, is hereby quashed. The civil suit shall be restored to the court of Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, for further proceedings.

¶22

Parties are directed to remain present before the Court below for further proceedings on 26^th November, 2018.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶24

Pooja/120

Saurabh Mittal S/O. Sh. Avinash Mittal v. Anant Publications

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Mittal S/O. Sh. Avinash Mittal v. Anant Publications

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

Smt Madhu Chordia Vs Suresh Chand Sharma and Ors.

Prahlad Das Son of Ram Chandra, Vs Gulab Shankar Son of Chogha Lal

Basanta Devi and Anr. Vs District Judge and Ors.

Jugal Kishore S/O Shri Lallu Golya, Vs Gopi Ram S/O Shri Mangi Lal

Ch. Mangal Chand Jhajharia Pvt. Iti Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Naveen Saini and Ors. Vs Shankar Lal Saini and Anr.