Karnataka High Court Launches Probe Into Trial Court Judge Citing Non-Existent Supreme Court Decision To Back Judgement

The Karnataka High Court has launched probe into an unusual incident of a Trial Court Judge citing non-existent decision of the Supreme Court to back his judgement.

The Court was considering a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the impugned order whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

The single bench of Justice R. Devdas observed, "What is more disturbing is the fact that the learned judge of City Civil Court has cited two decisions which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the learned judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Sundar M.S.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiffs in the case availed various loans from the Defendants, who are non banking finance companies. On default, in repayment of the loans, Defendant No.1 issued a detailed Acceleration Notice and thereafter Defendant No.1 invoked the pledge agreement by invocation notice and sought for transfer of the shares. The 1st Plaintiff filed a Commercial Suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from enforcing or acting upon the invocation notices and from undertaking any further proceedings related to the transfer or encumbrance of the pledged shares of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. However, the Plaintiffs therein filed a memo seeking to withdraw the Suit as not pressed, while seeking liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. However, instead of filing a fresh suit before the Commercial Court, the Plaintiffs filed a suit before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru with similar prayers as was sought before the commercial court.

The Defendants entered appearance in the Suit before the City Civil Court and filed an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a prayer to return the plaint to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, since the subject matter of the suit was evidently a commercial dispute and therefore such a suit could be tried only by the Commercial Court. However, the City Civil Judge passed the impugned order rejecting the application.

Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the City Civil Judge accepted the contentions of the Plaintiffs that the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court was not attracted, as Notice was issued by the Defendants only to Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 but the suit has been filed by nine (9) entities and therefore if some of the Plaintiffs do not have a commercial transaction with the Defendants, then such a suit is maintainable before the jurisdictional civil court. For that purpose, the Trial Court placed reliance on decisions which the Counsel argued are not rendered by the Supreme Court.

Senior Counsel further submitted that when the Plaintiffs sought to withdraw the Commercial Suit, it was not stated that the Suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Court. Liberty was not sought to approach the jurisdictional civil court

Reasoning By Court

The Court was of the view that the Application filed by the defendants to return the plaint, should have been allowed, for more than one reason.

"Firstly, the plaintiffs who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, did not seek leave of the Court while withdrawing the same, to present the suit before the civil court. Secondly, the plaintiffs are admittedly aggrieved of the demand notices issued by the defendants and such demand notices were issued only to some of the plaintiffs. Therefore, only those plaintiffs to whom demand notices were issued are aggrieved and they are entitled to seek relief at the hands of the competent court. Such of the plaintiffs could not have included some other entities to whom the defendants had not issued notices, to seek redressal of their grievance. On the other hand, if the defendants herein had approached the court and if they had filed the suit against entities to whom demand notices were not issued, then, such of the entities, as defendants, could have raised such a plea, regarding maintainability of the suit. It is unacceptable that the entities who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, would withdraw the suit, without liberty and thereafter filed a suit before the civil court impleading some other entities to whom admittedly notices were not issued by the defendants. This is an ingenious method adopted by the plaintiffs seeking to maintain a suit before a court which had no jurisdiction," the Court observed.

It also found it 'disturbing' that the City Civil Court cited two decisions which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other Court

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sammaan Capital Limited & Others vs. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, Advocate Chintan Chinnappa M.

Respondent- Senior Advocate Shyam Sundar M.S., Advocate B.K.S Sanjay

Click here to read/ download Order