Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Vs R A Perfumery Works Private Ltd (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : FAO (Comm) 128/2021, CM Nos. 28066/2021, 28067/2021 & 40033/2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/10/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Vs R A Perfumery Works Private Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: Delhi High Court held that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.

Facts: The appellant (plaintiff) has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 05.08.2021 (hereafter ‘the impugned order), passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-II, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereafter ‘the Commercial Court), whereby the respondent’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed and the plaint filed by the appellant was directed to be returned. The learned Commercial Court, on a reading of the plaint along with its documents, found that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

The respondent (defendant) had also sought dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that the appellant had instituted the said suit without complying with the mandatory provisions of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Commercial Court did not accept the said contention as the appellant had sought urgent relief. Accordingly, the said prayer of the respondent was rejected. The respondent has preferred cross-objection, assailing the impugned order to the extent the learned Commercial Court has rejected its prayer for rejection /dismissal of the plaint on the aforesaid ground.

The controversy to be addressed in the present appeal was two-fold. First, whether the impugned order directing return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction is erroneous; and, second, whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on account of failure on part of the appellant to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031