Fine Footwear Private Limited v. Skechers U.S.A. Inc. Writ Petition No. 23009 of 2019 (GM-CPC). Decided on July 15, 2019.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/280393/1/WP23009-19-15-07-2019.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 7. The contention of the respondent side that the commercial dispute is triable by ordinary civil court unless the specified value of its subject matter is not less than three lakh rupees, needs to be accepted because the suit of the respondents, going by the text & context of the plaint in general and its prayer columns in particular, is principally for an injunctive relief; that at paragraph No. 80 of the plaint, respondents have currently valued the subject matter of their suit at Rs. 2,000/- and have paid a Court Fee of Rs. 150/- presuraably under Section 26 of KCF & SV Act, 1958; apparently, they have not stated anything about specified value of the subject of the “Commercial Dispute”.
8. In KALLA YADAGIRI v. KHOTADAL REDILIY, 1999 (1) ALT 211 FB, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has crisply stated as under: “What decides the jurisdiction with regard to a particular case is the nature of claim as brought. The plaintiff is bound to assess the relief he claims on the basis of the benefit he seeks to obtain by filing the suit… In a suit for injunction simplicitor, it is the value of the relief claimed and not on the value of the property involved… suffice it to say that the proper method is to value for the Court fees first and take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction, for, value will control the matter for Court fees and jurisdiction. It is not the value of the thing affected that settles the value of relief sought, but it is the value of the relief sought, which determines the jurisdiction “Subject matter” is not the same thing as property. Subject matter is the substance for adjudication and it has reference to the right which the plaintiff seeks to enforce and the valuation of the suit depends upon the value of the subject matter thereof…”
9. The High Court of Delhi in the case of MRS. SONI DHAWE v. TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITIONS PVT. LTD., AIR 2016 DELHI 186 at has observed as under: “The Commercial Courts has not been enacted to interfere with the Court Fees Act or Suits Valuation Act … Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act providing for determination of specified value as defined in Section 2(1)(i) thereof is not intended to provide for a new mode of determining the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. It would be incongruous to hold that while for the purpose of payment of court fees the deemed fiction provided in the Court Fees Act for determining the value of property is to apply but not for determining the specified value under the Commercial Courts Act… Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act has to be read harmoniously with the Court Fees Act & Suits Valuation Act…”
10. It has been a well settled position of law that the plaintiff being the dominus litis has the prerogative of choosing the Court and determine the valuation of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, special jurisdiction or for computation of court fees; the opposing party cannot insist that the suit be tried before some other Court without establishing the lack of jurisdiction of the Court in which the cause is brought; the suit involves a commercial dispute, is true; but, there is no material placed on record to prima facie show that its specified value is Rupees Three Lakh or above, in terms of Section 2(1)(i) r/w Section 12 of the 2015 Act. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 1/2015 in the case of KIRLOSKAR AAF LIMITED v. AMERICAN AIR FILTERS COMPANY INC vide judgment dated 25.09.2018 at paragraph No. 8 observed “the twin requirements of this Act are that a dispute has to be a Commercial Dispute and secondly it must he of a certain pecuniary limit, namely Rupees Three Lakh or above…” In other words, the Commercial Courts have jurisdiction only in such matters which pass the Twin Test i.e., existence of a “Commercial Dispute” as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) and the “Specified Value” as defined under Section 2(c)(i) r/w Section 12 of the 2015 Act. In the present writ petition, although the suit involves a Commercial Dispute, the subject matter of the suit is apparently less than the Specified Value. To put it succinctly, the commercial courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction if both the commercial dispute and specified value concur to exist and not just one of them, as rightly contended by learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent.
11. The jurisdiction of the Courts to try all suits of civil nature is very expansive as is evident from the plain language of Sec.9 CPC, 1908. This is because of the principle ubi jus ibi remedrum; it is only where cognizance of a specified type of a suit is barred by a statute either expressly or impliedly that the jurisdiction of the civil court would be ousted to entertain such a suit; the general principle is that a statute excluding the jurisdiction of the civil courts should be construed stricto sensu; Zaw abhors ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts; the English and Indian decisions in this regard galore and need hardly to be mentioned.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 