Allowed

M/s. Nipro Medical India Private Limited v. Brs Health and Research Institute Private Limited

Telangana HC19 Oct 2022TRCMP/167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition filed by a corporate petitioner alleging procedural irregularities and loss of confidence in the Special Commercial Court. The Court exercised its power under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the suit to the Principal Special Court at Hyderabad, citing that justice must be seen to be done.

What did the court decide?

Commercial Original Suit No.60 of 2021 withdrawn from L.B.Nagar court and transferred to Principal Special Court at Hyderabad.

M/s. Nipro Medical India Private Limited Vs Brs… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

OF TELANGANA IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATF ^E TEI ATI^ T AT HYDHRlSBHE

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETI rw o iH o u sri',b ;:rtJ H,Pft Yyoff

)c ro B E R

[3218 ]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY TRANSFERC IVIL Mlsc EL LANEOUS P ETITION NO: 't67 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Nipro Medical India private Limited, a Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956. having. .^{its Corporate -6ft."} at Rajiv Gandhi lnternationat Airport, 2ni rroor, dMR A; i"";;;., itramsnaoao, Hyderabad500 108, Represented bv its Authoriz"Jonii", i,rril't. a..,onrr, Manager - Account Receivables and'Commercial Support.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

BRS Health and Research lnstitute private Limited, NG 12, North Block Ground Ftoor, Manioat c"ntr", oitt"n;;; R"il: Bengaturu_560042

¶12

The Government of Kamar.d D;;;ffi;ri"in"",,n and Famity wetfare Services, Vidhana so.u!!a, a".gr[irls6il6oi, of Karnataka represented by its chief secretary. (R2 is not necessary ",rtu in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition Under section 24 of the c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, he High court may be preased to transfer c-o.S.No.60 of 2021 pending on the fire of thi Speciar colrt foi trrat unJoi.po."r of the commercial Dispute, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar to any oiher e;;rt of equivalent and competent jurisdiction either in city civiicourt, liyderabad or Secunderabad or the Ranga Reddy District, and pass such other orderi.

¶14

lA NO:^'l OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further^proceedings in C.O.S.No.60 ot 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of the Commercial Dispute, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the above TRCMP and pass such other order or orders.

¶16

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. B SRINARAYANA, Advocate for the Petitioner and^pf Sri. SYED RAZZAO AHMED, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

.-__*'--.--.,r--

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY} TRANSFER CryIL MI SCELLANEOUS^PETITION NO. 167 0F 2022

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner has liled this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC) with a prayer for withdrawal of Commercial Original Suit (for short'COS') No.6O of 202 1, pending on the fiIe of the Special Court for Triat and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and to transfer to any other Court of equivalent and competent jurisdiction either in City Civil Courts, Hyderabad or Secunderabad or in Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

2 Notice is served on the respondents. Sri Syed Razzaq AIi Ahmed, Advocate has f,rled Valalat for 1"t respondent. Respondent No.2 is not necessary party. The 1st respondent has not {iled any counter artd there was no representation on behalf of l"t respondent subsequent to filing of Vakalat by Sri Syed Razzaq Ali Ahmed, Advocate. Accordingly, heard learned counsel for the petitioner ald the submissions made by him have received due consideratioh of this Court.

¶23

TT.CMP 16'7 2O22

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were some corrections in the docket proceedings of the trial Court. Certain orders were passed, written statement was accepted contrary to Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of CPC the petitioner was constrained to file Civil Rerrision Petition Nos. i89 and 191 of 2022. There were corrections in the docket proceedings of I.A.No.l6 of 2022. He relied on the principles laid in the following decisions seeking for transfer of COS No.60 of 2O2l to any other competent Court, having^{jurisdiction:}

¶26

(1) Subba Naika Vs.State of Karnataka and othersl. (2\ Ranjit Thakur Vs.Union of India and others2.

¶27

(3) Gurucharan Dass Chadha Vs.State of^Rajasthane. (4) Lalita Rajyalakshmi and another^{Vs. State of} Bihar and another4.

¶28

(s) State of West Bengal^{and others Vs' Shivananda} Pathak and otherss

¶29

(6 P.K.Ghosh, l.A.S.^{and another Vs'J' G'Rajputo'} (7 R.C.Sharma Vs.Union^{of India and othersz} (8 Sudha Sharma^{Vs. Ram NareshJaiswaland} anothers.

¶30

4 This Transfer^{Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liled by} the petitioner /^{plaintiff in COS No'60of 2O2l for 'withdrawalof}

¶31

t 2002 scc on-line KAR 645 'z^{0lsl;+ scc ot t} '.qm^{1966 sc lq18} 4 1955 SCC On-line PAT 135 '(t998)^{5 scc 513} u 1tsesl o scc ll+ '(1976)^{3 scc 574} I AIR l99o M.P.32o

Tr'cMP 16'1 2022

: J:

the said Commercial Original Suit, pending on the file^{of the} Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ralga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and to transfer the same to arry other competent Court having^jurisdiction either at Hyderabad or at Rarrga Reddy District. The petitioner has frled supporting alfidavit alleging certain procedural irregularities stating that the petitioner has lost faith in that particular Court, permission was accorded for hling written statement without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order 37, Rule 3 (6)(a) of CpC. Aggrieved by the same, the party has filed CRP No.797 of 2O22. There were certain corrections in the docket proceedings of I.A.No. 16 of 2022 by striking out the orders dated 11.O3.2O22, it is mentioned in handwriting. There were certain corrections in the A_Diary dated ro.12.2021, 22. 72.202 1, 27 . t2.202 t, 3 1 . t2.202 1, 03.O I .2022, t8.o 1.2022 and 21 .OI.2O22 in respect of suit. All these events and the manner in which the procedure has been violated and the orders were passed in I.A.No.l6 of 2O2l 1n COS, it has given any arnount of suspicion and thereby ttre petitioner has lost confidence on the Court atld there is a reasonable and bonalide apprehension in the mincl of the petitioner drirt they may not get

¶36

Tr.CMP 167 2022 4

¶37

fair consideration of their claim in the suit and accordingly, filed this transfer civil miscellaneous petition.

¶38

Be it stated that though lst respondent is represented by their learned counsel, who has filed Vakalat, they did not chose to file counter. After filing of Vakalat, learned counsel for the respondent No.l even did not chose to appear in this transfer civil miscellaneous petition and accordingly, on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it was treated as heard on behalf of respondent No.1. Whereas, respondent No.2 is not necessar5i party to the proceedings.

¶39

In Subba Naika Vs.State^{of Karnataka and others} case (1"t supra) it^{was held that passing of the orders in the} chamber and^{not in the opEn Court with backdate that itself is} afraudonthesystemandbasedondeepseatedproprieties which the^{judiciary has carved' for itself and which are well} settled^{principles and breach of those principles isnot} permissible'

¶40

in Ranjit^{ThakurVs.Union of India and otherscase} (!na supra)^{the principle laid is that apprehensionin the mind of}

./,

,/-

TT.CMP t67 2022

the litigant with regard to likelihood of bias is^{sufficient for} seeking transfer of the matter pending before concerned Judge. Similar principle is laid in Gurucharan Dass Chadha Vs.State of Rajasthan (3.a supra) and Lalita Rajyalakshmi and another Vs. State of Bihar and another (4th supra) relied on by the petitioner. Whereas in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Shivananda Pathak and others (5th supra) and P.K.Ghosh, I.A.S. and another Vs.J.G.Rajput (6th supra) it was hetd that justice should not oniy be done but it also seems to be done. In R.C.Sharma Vs.Union of India and others (7th supra) and Sudha Sharma Vs. Ram Naresh Jaiswal and aaother (gth supra) it was held that the confidence of the litigant should not be shaken and the ritigant should come to the court with conlidence.

¶46

B. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the sitting arrangement dated 17.0g.2022 this Court has to deal with all the tralsfer civil miscellaneous applications including the transfer civil miscella_neous petitions, filed for transfer of commerciaj original suits and the petitioner need not to file such an application before the Commercial Appellate

1'!.CMP l6't 2022

Division and that this court is competent to entertain the transfer applications even for transfer of commercial original suits from one Court to another competent Court.

¶51

Here in the instant case, COS No.6O of 2O2l is pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and that Court is having jurisdiction over the Revenue Districts of Ranga Reddy and the entire Telangana area except Hyderabad Revenue District. There is a Principal Special Court and additional special Court^{in the} cadre of District Judge for trial and^{disposal of commercial} disputes at Hyderabad^{having territorial jurisdictionover} Hyderabad Revenue^{District. The Commercial CourtsAct 2015} deals with^{jurisdiction of the Special Judge inrespect of} commercia-l^{disputes and that Courtis not sub-ordinate to the} Chief Judge,^{City Civil Court orPrincipal DistrictJudge} concerned.^{It is not a regularCivil Court whereunder the} learned^{Principal District Judge or ChiefJudge' City Civil Court} is competent^{to withdraw and transfer certain matters either to} or from^{the special Court under-Commercial Courts Act' 2015'}

¶52

]-r.CMP 167²⁰²²

¶53

Section 15 of Commercial Courts^{Act, 2015 deals} with transfer of pending cases and Section 16 deals^w'ith amendments to CPC in its application to commercial disputes, wherein, Section 24 of CPC is not mentioned. Thus, considering the sitting arrangement dated 17.08.2022 a conjoint reading of Sections 15 and 16 of Commercial Courts Act, together with Section 24 of CPC, I am convinced with the submissions made by learned counsel for the transfer petitioner that this Court has jurisdiction to transfer the pending commercial disputes from one competent Court to arother competent Court under Section 24 of CPC.

¶54

I I

¶55

1 1' The cardinal principle for exercise of Section 24 of cPC is that the ends of justice shourd demand the transfer of suit, appeal or other proceedings and there is no strait_jacket . formula or the principle laid either for considering the request or for rejecting the request for transfer. In the present case the petitioner / plaintiff has cited severa_l instances stating that the confidence of the party is shaken. Therefore, considering the principle that justice is not only be done but it also seen to be done and that the confideirce of the litigant should not be

\ t

.l L I

8: TT.CMP t6i 202)

shaken in the institution, I am inctined to accept the request of the petitioner.

¶61

In the result, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed, COS No.6O of 2021, pending on the Iile of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Special court in the cadre of District Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes at City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for disposal in accordance with law. The Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar shar transmit the entire case records in COS No60 of 2021, duly indexed, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending,

shall stands closed.

To,

SDI P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSTSTANT REGtSTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// ,1,

¶66

SECTION OFFICER

¶67