Telangana High Court
P. Prem Kumar vs K.S.P. Leelavathi on 18 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3314, 3315, 3316, 3552 and 3553 of 2024
% Dated 18.11.2024
C.R.P.Nos.3314 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ M. Mohan Rao S/o.M. Bhaskar Rao
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.302, Shivakailash Apartment,
Opp: Hyderabad Metro Water Works,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.
... Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3315 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ P. Premalatha W/o.P.B. Chowdary,
Aged: about 67 years, Occ: Housewife,
C/o.M.Venkateswara Rao,
Flat No.302, Shivkailash Apartments,
Opp: Hyderabad Metro Water Works,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.
... Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3316 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ M. Mohan Rao S/o.M. Bhaskar Rao
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.302, Shivakailash Apartment,
Opp: Hyderabad Metro Water Works,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.
... Respondent
2
C.R.P.Nos.3552 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ K.S.P. Leelavathi (died per LRs)
K. Sreenivas Babu S/o.K.Gopal Rao,
Aged: about 54 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o.Villa No.2, The Meadow Dance
Sagar Hills, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad - 500 030 and another.
... Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3553 of 2024
# P. Prem Kumar S/o.Late P. Rama Rao
Aged about 66 years, Occ: business,
R/o.1A, Arora Colony, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ K.S.P. Leelavathi (died per LRs)
K. Sreenivas Babu S/o.K.Gopal Rao,
Aged: about 54 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o.Villa No.2, The Meadow Dance
Sagar Hills, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad - 500 030 and another.
... Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.R.A.Achuthanand
^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr. Velagapudi Srinivas
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2008) 8 SCC 612
2. (2020) 4 SCC 234
3. 2024 LawSuit (Del) 53
4. (2019) 17 SCC 385
5. (2005) 4 SCC 741
6. 2020 SCC Online TS 3337
7. 1961 SCC OnLine SC 292
8. (2022) 2 SCC 25
3
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3314, 3315, 3316, 3552
and 3553 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)
Civil Revision Petition Nos.3314, 3315 and 3553 of 2024
are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 13.02.2024 passed in
E.A.No.29 of 2023 in C.E.P.No.10 of 2022, E.A.No.28 of 2023
in C.E.P.No.11 of 2022 and E.A.No.27 of 2023 in C.E.P.No.12
of 2022 respectively passed by the Special Judge for Trial and
Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar, in allowing review applications.
1.1. Civil Revision Petition Nos.3316 and 3552 of 2024 are
filed aggrieved by the orders dated 28.02.2024 passed in
I.A.No.667 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.507 of 2022 and I.A.No.819 of
2023 in A.O.P.No.505 of 2022 respectively passed by the XI
Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga
Reddy District, in allowing applications filed under Order VII
Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC).
4
2. Since all the civil revision petitions arise out of an award
dated 23.05.2022 passed in Arbitration Application Nos.133,
134 and 135 of 2019 by the learned Arbitrator, these matters
have been heard together and are being decided by this
common order.
3. Heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri Velagapudi Srinivas, learned counsel for
the respondents.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. The respondents filed Arbitration Application Nos.133,
134 and 135 of 2019 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Act’)
seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute
arising out of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney (for short, ‘DAGPA’) dated 04.03.2006 between the
petitioner and respondents and the said applications were
allowed by this Court by its common order dated 30.04.2020,
appointing Justice Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, High Court Judge
(Retd.) as sole Arbitrator. The respondents filed claim
statement before the Arbitrator to declare that the DAGPAs
5dated 04.03.2006 entered by them in respect of their
properties to an extent of 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and
2,437 sq. yards in Sy.No.70 situated at Serilingampally
Village, Ranga Reddy District, for construction of residential
complex/independent houses/row houses etc., be terminated
and invalid and to cancel the Deed and to hand over the
original DAGPAs and also to direct the petitioner to execute
the Deeds of Cancellation etc. The petitioner filed statement of
defence denying the claim of the respondents. Learned
Arbitrator after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties
passed award, as prayed for, in the Arbitration Applications on
23.05.2022 holding that where time has to be held to be
essence of contract; as the claimants/respondents cannot be
made to indefinitely wait; when the contract became
impossible to perform for want of roads; and on account of
ambiguity in terms of Ex.A.1 document, there is possibility of
the contract being void, the termination of the contract cannot
be said to be illegal. The learned Arbitrator further held that
the petitioner is entitled to return the advance amount paid to
6the respondents with simple interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of payment till the date of repayment.
4.2. Pursuant to the above said award, the respondents have
filed execution petitions vide C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022
invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC., seeking
execution of the cancellation of DAGPAs bearing document
Nos.4907, 4906 and 4904 of 2006, dated 04.03.2006 and
direct the petitioner to execute the deeds of cancellation of
DAGPAs on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal
of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. The said
execution petitions were dismissed, by its order dated
16.08.2023, on the ground that the said Court is not having
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said execution
petitions. Thereafter, the respondents filed applications vide
E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 invoking the provisions of
Section 114 of the CPC., to review the order dated 16.08.2023
on the ground that the respondents/Decree-holders filed
Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 under
Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator and in
the said applications, the value of the subject property is
mentioned at Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and
7Rs.1,23,13,860/- and also filed market value certificates of the
scheduled properties, the value is shown as Rs.9,000/- per sq.
yard and the extents of lands are 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq.
yards and 2,437 sq. yards respectively and the same was not
disputed by the petitioner and the value is more than One
Crore and the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of
Commercial Disputes is having jurisdiction to entertain the
execution petitions. In the said applications, the petitioner
filed counters denying the averments. The Court below after
hearing the parties allowed the said applications i.e.,
E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023, by its order dated 13.02.2024.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the above
C.R.P.Nos.3314, 3315 and 3553 of 2024.
4.3. Aggrieved by the award dated 23.05.2022, the petitioner
filed A.O.P.No.507 and 505 of 2022 on the file of the XI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at
L.B.Nagar. In the said AOPs, the respondents have filed
applications vide I.A.Nos.667 and 819 of 2023 respectively
invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 read with Section
151 of CPC., seeking to return the original petitions i.e.,
A.O.P.Nos.507 and 505 of 2022 on the ground that the
8
dispute between the parties is commercial in nature and the
specified value of the subject properties are more than Rupees
One Crore and as per Section 10(3) of Commercial Courts Act,
2015, all the applications and appeals arising out of
arbitration shall be filed and disposed of only by the
Commercial Courts. Learned XI Additional District and
Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, allowed
the said applications by its order dated 28.02.2024. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.Nos.3316 and
3552 of 2024.
4.4. Initially, the petitioner filed civil miscellaneous appeals
and subsequently the same were converted into civil revision
petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
applications filed by the respondents vide E.A.Nos.29, 28 and
27 of 2023 seeking review of the order dated 16.08.2023 is not
maintainable under law, as the scope of review is very limited,
especially when there is no error apparent on the face of the
record and hence, the Court is not having power to review the
9order. He further contended that the respondents have not
mentioned the specified value in the execution petitions
stipulated under the provisions of the Commercial Disputes
Act or filed any document to show that the Special Court for
Commercial Disputes is having jurisdiction to entertain
C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 to enforce the award passed
by the learned Arbitrator dated 23.05.2022. The Court below
rightly dismissed C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 on
16.08.2023 by giving cogent reasons, however, the very same
Court has allowed the review applications i.e., E.A.Nos.29, 28
and 27 of 2023 on 13.02.2024 reviewing the earlier order and
the same is not permissible under law.
5.2. He further submitted that once the Court decided that
the respondents have not mentioned the specified value and
further observed that according to DAGPAs, the market value
of the properties mentioned below is Rupees One Crore only
and dismissed C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022, through
order dated 16.08.2023, the very same Court is not having
power to review the said order basing upon the new material
placed by the petitioner, as the scope of review is very limited.
105.3. He also submitted that the respondents ought to have
questioned the order dated 16.08.2023 by way of revision, on
the other hand, they simply filed the review petitions as the
scope of review is very limited. In such circumstances, the
Court below ought not to have allowed the applications.
5.4. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the
following judgments:
1. State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal
Sengupta and another 1;
2. Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
C.M.P.No.3774 of 2024 in Rev.Appln.SR.No.8439
of 2024 between S.Ganeshraja (died) v.
T.L.Dhanalakshmi;
3. BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited 2; and
4. Simentech India Private Limited v. Bharat Heavy
Electricals Limited 3.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents:
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents contended that the respondents in the Arbitration
1
(2008) 8 SCC 612
2
(2020) 4 SCC 234
3
2024 LawSuit (Del) 53
11Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 filed under Section
11 of the Act, specifically mentioned that the value of the
subject properties is Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and
Rs.1,23,13,860/- and also filed market value certificates of the
scheduled properties and the value is shown as Rs.9,000/-
per sq. yard and the extents of lands are 2,437 sq. yards,
2,540 sq. yards and 2,437 sq. yards respectively and the same
was not disputed by the petitioner and the said applications
were allowed on 30.04.2020 appointing sole Arbitrator and
Arbitrary Tribunal passed award dated 23.05.2022 allowing
the claim of the respondents.
6.2. He further submitted that the dispute is of commercial
nature and as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts
Act, if the property value is more than Rupees One Crore, the
Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes
alone is having jurisdiction to adjudicate C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and
12 of 2022 not by any other Court. The Court below dismissed
C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 only on the ground that the
respondents have not mentioned the value in the execution
petitions nor filed any document, though the respondents
specifically mentioned the value of the subject properties is at
12
Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and Rs.1,23,13,860/- at
the time of filing of the Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134
and 135 of 2019 and the Court below committed an error
apparent on record while dismissing the applications. Hence,
the respondents have filed applications i.e., E.A.Nos.29, 28
and 27 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Section 114 of CPC.,
and the Court below rightly allowed the applications and
passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2024.
6.3. He further submitted that A.O.P.Nos.505 and 507 filed
by the petitioner aggrieved by award passed by the Arbitrator
before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.
Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, are not maintainable on the
ground of jurisdiction and the said Court rightly accepted the
applications i.e., I.A.Nos.819 of 2023 and 667 of 2023 and
directed the petitioner to present before proper Court.
Pursuant to the said order dated 28.02.2024 in A.O.P.Nos.505
and 507 of 2022, the respondents have already re-submitted
before the Commercial Court and the same was numbered as
C.O.P.Nos.25 and 27 of 2024 respectively and the order
passed by the Court below is already worked out and by virtue
13
of the same, the C.R.P.Nso.3316 and 3552 of 2024 are liable
to be dismissed.
6.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta 4;
2. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji
Cricket Club 5;
3. Manoj Khandelwal v. Delight Ventures & Realtors
(P) Ltd. 6;
4. Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath Singh and others 7; and
5. Union of India and others v. N.Murugesan and
others 8.
Analysis:
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on
record.
8. Before proceeding further, we may take note of the scope
of review which is well delineated by a catena of decisions of
4
(2019) 17 SCC 385
5
(2005) 4 SCC 741
6
2020 SCC Online TS 3337
7
1961 SCC OnLine SC 292
8
(2022) 2 SCC 25
14
the Supreme Court. In Kamal Sengupta (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated the limited grounds for review under
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC., which are: (i) discovery of new and
important evidence that could not have been produced earlier
despite due diligence, (ii) an error apparent on the face of the
record, and (iii) “any other sufficient reason,” which must be
similar in nature to the first two grounds. The Court
emphasized that review jurisdiction is narrow and can only be
invoked to correct evident and significant mistakes, not for re-
argument of the case. This principle, as previously interpreted
in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose
Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526], underscores that review is not
a means to reconsider issues that could have been raised
initially, but rather to address manifest errors to prevent
injustice.
9. In Sunil Vasudeva (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that a review application is maintainable only under
specific conditions, as clarified in Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati [(2013) 8 SCC 320] that review will be maintainable
on the ground that the discovery of new, significant evidence
that was previously unavailable despite due diligence, a
15
mistake or error that is apparent on the face of the record, or
any other sufficient reason comparable to these grounds.
However, review cannot be granted for repetitive or minor
arguments, nor can it serve as a disguised appeal to
re-evaluate evidence or re-argue the case. A review is
permissible only when a patent error affects the soundness of
the judgment or leads to a miscarriage of justice, rather than
for mere alternative interpretations.
10. In Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of review is not an
inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically
or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal
in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which
transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or
technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration
of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds
that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a
mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed
but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and
its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing
would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.
16
11. In Manoj Khandelwal (supra), this Court emphasized
that under Section 37(1)(a) of the Court Fees Act, when a suit
is filed to cancel a document that affects rights, titles, or
interests in property (movable or immovable), the court fee
must be calculated based on the value of the subject matter.
Specifically, if the entire document is sought to be cancelled,
the fee should be computed on the total value of the property
or amount covered by that document. In this case, the
petitioners failed to pay the requisite court fee for cancelling a
Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney,
which impacted property rights, thus underscoring the
principle that court fees must align with the document’s full
financial value when it is entirely contested for cancellation.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the value of the subject
property is mentioned in the Arbitration Application Nos.133,
134 and 135 of 2019 filed under Section 11 of the Act,
specifically mentioned that the value of the subject properties
is Rs.1,23,13,860/-, Rs.1,28,34,371/- and Rs.1,23,13,860/-
and also filed market value certificates. It is already stated
supra the respondents have brought to the notice of the Court
below that the value of the subject property is more than One
17
Crore and also mentioned specified value in the Arbitration
Application Nos. 133, 134 and 135 of 1994 and the Court
below rightly passed the impugned order invoking the
provisions of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
13. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and
respondents were entered into Development Agreement-cum-
General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) vide document Nos.4907,
4906 and 4904 of 2006 dated 04.03.2003 in respect of the
lands to an extent of 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and
2,437 sq. yards respectively in Sy.No.70 situated at
Serilingampally Village of Ranga Reddy District, to develop the
land into row houses/villas/residential complexes etc., and
subsequently disputes were arose between them and the
respondents got issued legal notice dated 15.06.2019
cancelling DAGPAs and also got issued another legal notice
dated 19.08.2019 and requested the petitioner to cooperate for
execution of deed of cancellation etc. When there is no
response, the respondents invoked arbitration clauses and
filed Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019
under Section 11 of the Act before this Court seeking
appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between
18
them. This Court after hearing the parties allowed the
Arbitration Applications, by its order dated 30.04.2020 and
appointed Justice P.Swaroop Reddy, Judge (Retd.) as sole
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and
respondents arising out of DAGPAs dated 04.03.2006. It is
also an undisputed fact that the learned Arbitrator was
pleased to pass common Award dated 23.05.2022 in
Arbitration Application Nos.133, 134 and 135 of 2019 allowing
the claims of the respondents, as prayed for, holding that
termination of the contract cannot be said to be illegal and
further held that the petitioner is entitled to return the of
advance amount paid to the respondents with simple interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of payment till the date of
repayment to him. It further appears from the record that
pursuant to the award, the respondents have paid an amount
of Rs.6,20,408/- vide Demand Draft No.410373 drawn on
Union Bank of India, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, dated
06.06.2022 in Arbitration Application No.133 of 2019,
Rs.6,46,616/- vide Demand Draft No.422220 drawn on Union
Bank of India, Tenali, dated 01.06.2022 in Arbitration
Application No.134 of 2019 and Rs.6,20,408/- vide Demand
19
Draft No.512905 drawn on ICICI Bank, Hyderabad, dated
04.06.2022 in Arbitration Application No.135 of 2019, and the
same were sent along with letters through registered post and
the same was received by the petitioner.
14. It further reveals from the record that the respondents
filed execution petitions, vide C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022
seeking direction to the petitioner/Judgment-debtor to execute
the deed of cancellation of DAGPAs in compliance of the award
of the learned Arbitrator dated 23.05.2022 invoking the
provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of C.P.C. The said C.E.Ps.,
were dismissed on 16.08.2023 on the ground that the
respondents have not mentioned the value or filed any
document showing the market value and they have not
satisfied the requirement of specified value stipulated under
Section 12 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondents filed
E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 invoking the provisions of
Section 114 of CPC., to review the order dated 16.08.2023 on
the ground that the value of subject properties are more than
Rupees One Crore and the value of the properties are
specifically mentioned as Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration
Application No.133 of 2019, Rs.1,28,34,371/- in Arbitration
20
Application No.134 of 2019 and Rs.1,23,13,860/- in
Arbitration Application No.135 of 2019 and also enclosed the
market value certificates and the same were not disputed by
the petitioner and the said Arbitration Applications were
allowed by this Court on 30.04.2020 and learned Arbitrator
adjudicated the disputes between the parties and passed
award dated 23.05.2022.
15. The record reveals that aggrieved by the award passed by
the learned Arbitrator dated 23.05.2022, the petitioner filed
A.O.P.Nos.507 and 505 of 2022 before the XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. In the
said A.O.Ps., the respondents filed applications i.e.,
I.A.Nos.667 and 819 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Order
VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for return of the
original petition on the ground that the dispute between the
parties is a commercial dispute and the value of the dispute is
more than One Crore, hence, the Commercial Court alone is
having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The learned
Judge after considering the contentions of the respective
parties and provisions of the Act allowed the applications, by
its order dated 28.02.2024. Pursuant to the said order, the
21
petitioner re-presented A.O.P.Nos.505 and 507 of 2022 before
the Commercial Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,
and the same were numbered as C.O.P.Nos.25 and 27 of 2024
respectively.
16. It is pertinent to place on record that in the Arbitration
Applications filed under Section 11 of the Act, the
respondents/applicants specifically mentioned the value of the
applications is more than Rupees One Crore i.e.,
Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration Application No.133 of 2019,
Rs.1,28,34,371/- in Arbitration Application No.134 of 2019
and Rs.1,23,13,860/- in Arbitration Application No.135 of
2019 and the same was not disputed by the petitioner. Basing
on the said valuation, this Court entertained the Arbitration
Applications and adjudicated the proceedings and allowed the
same and appointed a retired High Court Judge as an
Arbitrator, by its order dated 30.04.2020.
17. It is relevant to extract sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 28 of 2018), which reads as
follows:
22
“Specified Value”, in relation to a commercial
dispute, shall mean the value of the subject-matter in
respect of a suit as determined in accordance with
Section 12, which shall not be less than one crore
rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the
Central Government.”
18. As per the provisions of the Act, learned Arbitrator
adjudicated the disputes and passed the award on
23.05.2022. Subsequent to passing of the award by the
learned Arbitrator, the petitioner is not entitled to contend
that the value of the property is below Rupees One Crore and
the Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain
the execution petitions and the stand taken by the petitioner
amounts to approbate and reprobate and the same is not
permissible under law.
19. As soon as it was brought to the notice of the Court that
the specified value mentioned in the Arbitration Applications
under Section 11 of the Act are more than Rupees One Crore,
the Court below allowed E.A.Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023
holding that at the time of passing of the order in
C.E.P.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022, the said fact was not
brought to the Court and the same can be rectified by
23
invoking the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of CPC. The Court below rightly reviewed the
order dated 16.08.2023 through impugned order dated
13.02.2024.
20. It is already stated supra, pursuant to the order dated
28.02.2024, the Arbitration Applications filed by the petitioner
was returned and the petitioner has taken back the said
Applications and re-submitted the same before the competent
Court i.e., Commercial Court and the same were numbered as
C.O.P.Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 2024. Hence, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commercial Court
is not having jurisdiction to entertain the C.E.Ps., filed by the
respondents is not tenable under law. Further, the
respondents have not filed review applications seeking to
review the order basing on the present market value
certificate. The respondents have filed review applications
basing on the valuation mentioned in Arbitration Applications
under Section 11 of the Act in the year 2019 pursuant to the
market value certificates of the year 2019 only and the same
was not disputed by the petitioner.
24
21. The principle established in BGS SGS Soma JV (supra)
is that the jurisdiction for appeals in commercial disputes
under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is governed by the
specific provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996, particularly
Section 37, which limits the grounds for appeal. The
Commercial Courts Act does not provide an independent right
of appeal but rather sets the forum for appeals, which must
align with the specific conditions set out in the Arbitration Act.
The case reinforces the need for a harmonious interpretation
of both statutes to ensure the speedy resolution of commercial
disputes and the expeditious enforcement of foreign
arbitration awards.
22. In Simentech India Private Limited (supra), the Delhi
High Court held that in any arbitration case, the Specified
Value would continually get revised. Consequently, if the
Specified Value is initially below the pecuniary jurisdiction of
this Court, it would eventually fall within the jurisdiction of a
High Court simply due to the accrual of interest over time.
This outcome would contravene the legislative intent behind
establishing a specific threshold for the pecuniary jurisdiction
of the Courts. Hence, it is necessary to consider the portion of
25
interest accrued up to the date of invocation of arbitration as
part of the ‘aggregate value’ in accordance with Section 12(2)
of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
23. The decisions in BGS SGS Soma JV (supra) and
Simentech India Private Limited (supra) are not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that
the respondents have specifically mentioned the value of the
subject property in the Arbitration Applications, which are
filed in the year 2019 along with market value certificates, the
value of the property is more than Rupees One Crore and the
nature of the dispute is commercial dispute.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned
order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge for Trial
and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar in E.A.Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2023 as well as the
impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy
District, in I.A.No.667 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.505 of 2023 and
I.A.No.819 of 2023 in A.O.P.No.507 of 2023 exercising the
26
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
25. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed.
No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 18.11.2024
L.R. Copy to be marked
(b/o)
mar