Partly allowed

Man Mohan Agarwal Son of Shri Gl Agarwal, v. Shri Gordhandas Maheshwari Son of Shri Gopal Lal Jhanwar

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2024CMA/1123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a lower court's decision to return a plaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act. The High Court upheld the return of the plaint but quashed the costs awarded to the broker respondent, noting that deleting a defendant while declining jurisdiction was improper.

What did the court decide?

The order returning the plaint was upheld. The deletion of respondent No.2 and the award of costs against him were set aside. The appeal is partly allowed.

Man Mohan Agarwal Son of Shri Gl Agarwal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:33579-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1510/2021

¶4

Man Mohan Agrawal Son Of Shri Gl Agrawal, D-26/3, Todermal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur (Deceased) Through Lrs.

¶5

Manoj Goyal S/o Late Shri Man Mohan Agrawal, R/o D-26, Todemal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶6

Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Man Mohan Agrawal, R/o D-26, Todemal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶7

Maya Mangal D/o Late Shri Man Mohan Agrawal, W/o Sanjay Mangal, R/o Plot No. 87, Moji Colony, Malviya Nagar, Behind Royal Huts Restaurants, Jaipur.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shri Gordhandas Maheshwari S/o Shri Gopal Lal Jhanwar, Aged About 18 Years, Berdia Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur.

¶11

Shri Narain Gatani, Financial Broker/agent, 2/26, Gatani Bhawan, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. (Left W.o. 2.3.2021)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1123/2022

¶15

Man Mohan Agarwal Son Of Shri Gl Agarwal, Resident Of D-36/3, Todarmal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur (Deceased) Through Lrs.

¶16

Manoj Goyal Son Of Late Shri Man Mohan Agarwal, Resident Of D-36/3, Todarmal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶17

Shanti Devi Wife Of Late Shri Man Mohan Agarwal, Resident Of D-36/3, Todarmal Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶18

Maya Mangal Daughter Of Late Shri Man Mohan Agarwal Wife Of Shri Sanjay Mangal, Resident Of Plot No. 87, Moji Colony, Malviya Nagar, Behind Royal Huts Restaurants, Jaipur.

¶19

----Appellants

¶20

[2024:RJ-JP:33579-DB]

[CMA-1510/2021]

(2 of 5)

Versus

Shri Gordhandas Maheshwari Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Jhanwar, 18, Berdia Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur.

¶25

Shri Narain Gatani, Financial Broker/agent, 2/26, Gatani Bhawan, Gangoti Bazar, Jaipur.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Appellant(s)	: Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain, Adv., Ms. Zeeshan Khan, Adv. Mr. Roshan Vishvakarma, Adv. & Mr. Raj Singh Rathore, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. J.M. Jain, Adv. Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, Adv.
	Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal, Adv.

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶29

Order

¶30

06/08/2024

¶31

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment and order dated 02.08.2021, whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.2 under order 1 Rule 10 (2) (CPC) was allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- and application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and Section 151 CPC was allowed and the plaint has been returned for presentation to the proper Court.

¶32

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute is covered under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act as money was lent for commercial purpose. It is also contended that the Court is required to only peruse the pleadings and as per the pleadings, the money was lent for business

¶33

[2024:RJ-JP:33579-DB]

¶34

[CMA-1510/2021]

¶35

(3 of 5)

¶36

purpose and therefore, the Commercial Court was having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also contended that the order is contradictory as at one stage, the Court held that it has no jurisdiction and on the other stage, it has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 and has awarded Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent No.2.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have opposed the appeal. It is contended that the dispute is not a commercial dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on Ladymoon Towers Private Limited Vs. Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited Civil Suit No.99/2020 decided by the Calcutta High Court on 13.08.2021 and Prime Hitech Textiles LLP Vs. Manish Kumar Civil Suit No.141/2021 decided by the Calcutta High Court on 13.07.2022. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 is unnecessarily being dragged into the litigation. He was only a broker and there is no relief claimed against him.

¶38

We have considered the contentions and perused the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court. We have also perused the plaint and have also considered the definition of “commercial dispute” given under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act. It will be apt to reproduce the definition of “commercial dispute” given under the Commercial Courts Act 2 (1) (c) Commercial Courts Act.

¶39

“(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of–– (i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents dispute arising out of the ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders

¶40

[2024:RJ-JP:33579-DB]

¶41

[CMA-1510/2021]

¶42

(4 of 5)

¶43

such as those such as those relation mercantile document include interpretation of documents.”

¶44

From perusal of the plaint, it is revealed that plaintiff has mentioned in the pleadings that money has been given for the purpose of commercial use of the said amount. It is also pleaded that interests on the said amount was also paid by the respondents. From perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the appellant has not produced any mercantile document to establish that he was a financier, merchant, banker or trader. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act pertains to ordinary transactions such as those relating to mercantile documents. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to any mercantile documents. As held by the Calcutta High Court in Ladymoon Towers Private Limited Vs. Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited (Supra), advance of loan cannot be termed as a commercial dispute since the plaintiff is neither a financier nor a banker, merchant or trader and the dispute does not pertain to a mercantile document. The Commercial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not having jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and has not committed any error in returning the plaint to the proper Court. However, after the Court has come to the conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction, it was not proper for the Court to have awarded cost to respondent No.2 and delete the defendant No.2 from the array of defendants as that would tantamount to exercise of jurisdiction on the matter.

¶45

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the Court vide which the plaint has been returned for presentation to the proper Court is upheld, however, the order vide which the

¶46

[2024:RJ-JP:33579-DB]

¶47

[CMA-1510/2021]

¶48

(5 of 5)

¶49

respondent No.2 has been deleted and the order by which the cost

¶50

has been awarded is set aside.

¶51