[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
M/S. Panchajanya Features vs Bommareddy Ashok Reddy on 2 May, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2323 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the order dated
15.07.2024, in I.A.No.486 of 2024 in O.S.No.268 of 2024, passed
by the IV Additional District, Ranga Reddy Distric at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Mr. Pasham Mohith Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a
petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11(d)
read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short,
‘CPC‘) seeking for return of the plaint and filing the same before the
Commercial Court established by the Government.
4. The present Revision arises from a copyright dispute
concerning a Telugu movie titled “Vinnapalu Vinavale Vintha
Vinthalu”. The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.268 of 2024
praying the trial Court for grant of permanent injunction, alleging
copyright violations by the petitioners.The petitioners, engaged in
Page 2 of 16
the movie-making business, contends that the respondent was
specifically employed for developing the script for a remuneration of
Rs.5,00,000/-, of which partial payment has already been made. As
the movie approached its completion stage, the respondent filed the
suit seeking injunction. Upon appearance, the petitioner, after
reviewing the material papers, filed an application under Order VII
Rule 11(d)read with Section 151 of CPC challenging the Trial Court’s
jurisdiction on the ground that the matter falls within the purview of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. The procedural trajectory of the caseis initially, the Trial Court
granted a status quo order on 03.07.2024 in I.A.No.408 of 2024
which was challenged by the petitioner through C.R.P.258 of 2024
before the High Court. Subsequently, the High Court disposed of
the matter directing the Trial Court to decide the petition filed by
the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(d)read with Section 151 of
CPC for rejection of the suit within 20 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order. The Trial Court, vide its impugned order
dated 15.07.2024, dismissed the said petition, which according to
the petitioners is without adequate consideration of the legal
propositions regarding jurisdictional aspects under the recently
amended Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner received the
Page 3 of 16
copy of the said order on 19.07.2024.
6. It is this order passed by the Trial Court which is under
challenge in the instant Revision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial
Court gravely erred in dismissing the petition for rejection of suit
under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC as the
matter inherently involves a commercial dispute concerning
intellectual property rights as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Further,the learned counsel
contended that since the dispute relates to intellectual property with
a suit value of Rs.50,00,000/- which exceeds the specified value of
Rs.3,00,000/- under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as amended
in 2018). Thus, the jurisdiction exclusively vests with the concerned
Commercial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
Trial Court’s reliance on the memo of the Registrar (Judicial-II)
dated 14.07.2022 is misplaced and contradicts established judicial
precedents, including the principleslaid down by this High Court
itself in the case of K. Sriman Narayana Murthy and Ors. vs. V.
Page 4 of 16
Agastya Sagar and Ors 1. However, the Trial Court also failed to
provide adequate reasons for its order and overlooked the
mandatory requirement that commercial disputes, particularly those
involving intellectual property rights under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as amended in 2018) must be
tried only by the Commercial Courts.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended
that the Trial Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing
the petition for rejection of suit, as the matter primarily concerns
enforcement of contractual obligations and copyright infringement
which falls within the purview of regular Civil Court. Further, the
learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 does not divest regular Civil Courts of their
inherent jurisdiction to hear copyright matters and the specified
value threshold alone cannot be the determining factor for
jurisdiction.
10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent highlighted that
the Trial Court’s reliance on the memo of the Registrar (Judicial-II)
was appropriate and in line with established judicial practice. The
learned counsel also submitted that the petition for rejection of
1
2022 (1) ALT 706
Page 5 of 16
plaint was rightly dismissed as it was merely a dilatory tactic
employed by the petitioners to delay the proceedings and continue
with the unauthorized use of the copyrighted material.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and on
perusal of records, the question of law that requires consideration is
‘whether in the light of the amended provision of the Commercial
Courts Act w.e.f. 03.05.2018 whether a pecuniary jurisdiction for a
Commercial Court in the State of Telangana would continue to be
Rs.1,00,00,000/- in terms of the notification under the pre-
amended provision of law or whether it has to be Rs.3,00,000/- in
terms of the amended provision so far as the Specified Value under
12. For better understanding of the dispute, it would be relevant
at this juncture to take note of the definition of ‘intellectual
property’ as is provided under the Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. For ready reference, the same is
reproduced hereunder:
“2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
………..
(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of–
………..
Page 6 of 16
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and
unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names,
geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;”
13. Recently, this very Court itself had an occasion of dealing with
a similar dispute in the case of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Construction
vs. D. Muralidhar Rao 2 wherein in paragraph Nos.16 to 18; un-
amended provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 were
discussed in detail which for ready reference are reproduced
hereunder, viz.,
“16. So also the definition of ‘specific value’ as is defined under
Section 2(1)(i) which reads as under:
“2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
………..
(i) “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.
17.Section 3 also lays down the constitution of the Commercial
Courts within the State, which reads thus:
“3. Constitution of Commercial Courts.-(1) The State
Government, may after consultation with the concerned High
Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial
Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose
of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts
under this Act: Provided that no Commercial Court shall be
constituted for the territory over which the High Court has
ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
2
Order dated 21.03.2025 in C.R.P.No.297 of 2025
Page 7 of 16(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the
concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of the
area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall extend
and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter such limits.
(3) The State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief
Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons having
experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the Judge or
Judges, of a Commercial Court, from amongst the cadre of Higher
Judicial Service in the State.”
18. Another aspect of law which needs to be considered is the
provision of Section 12 dealing with ‘Specified Value’ and Section 15
dealing with ‘transfer of pending Suits’. For ready reference, Section
12 & Section 15 are being reproduced hereunder:
“Section 12: Determination of Specified Value.-(1) The
Specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute
in a suit, appeal or application shall be determined in the
following manner:-
(a) where the relief sought in a suit or application is for
recovery of money, the money sought to be recovered in the suit
or application inclusive of interest, if any, computed up to the
dateof filing of the suit or application, as the case may be, shall
be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;
(b) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application
relates to movable property or to a right therein, the market
value of the movable property as on the date of filing of the suit,
appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into
account for determining such Specified Value;
(c) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application
relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market
value of the immovable property, as on the date of filing of the
suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken
into account for determining Specified Value; 1[and]
(d) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application
relates to any other intangible right, the market value of the said
rights as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for
determining Specified Value; and
(e) where the counter-claim is raised in any suit, appeal or
Page 8 of 16application, the value of the subject matter of the commercial
dispute in such counter-claim as on the date of the counter-claim
shall be taken into account.
(2) The aggregate value of the claim and counterclaim, if any as set
out in the statement of claim and the counterclaim, if any, in an
arbitration of a commercial dispute shall be the basis for
determining whether such arbitration is subject to thejurisdiction of
a Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division or
Commercial Court, as the case may be.
(3) No appeal or civil revision application under section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as the case may be,
shall lie from an order of a Commercial Division or Commercial
Court finding that it has jurisdiction to hear a commercialdispute
under this Act.”
15. Transfer of pending cases.-(1) All suits and applications,
including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value
pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been
constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division.
(2) All suits and applications, including applications under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil court
in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has
been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court:
Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment
hasbeen reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the
Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred
either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).
(3) Where any suit or application, including an application under
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to
a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to
the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to
those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer.
(4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case
may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such
transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines
Page 9 of 16or issue such further directions as may be necessary for a speedy
and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in
accordance1[with Order XV-A] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908):
Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not apply to
such transferred suit or application and the court may, in its
discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written
statement shall be filed.
(2) In the event that such suit or application is not transferred in
the manner specified in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court
may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw
such suit or application from the court before which it is pending
and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial
Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having
territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer
shall be final and binding.”
A plain reading of Section 12 clearly gives an indication of the said
provision providing the method and guidelines for determining the
Specified Value involved in the commercial dispute. The provision of
law does not prescribe a minimum Specified Value, or for that matter
the maximum Specified Value. The Section outlines the procedure to
be followed for determining the value of a suit based on its nature.
Likewise, Section 15 is a crucial provision that lays down the
jurisdiction of Commercial Courts, specifying the appropriate court for
filing commercial disputes.”
14. Further, in the same judgment, dealing with amended
provisions of Commercial Courts Act,in paragraph Nos.19 to 25 it
was held as under, viz.,
“19. Admittedly, when the Suit was filed it was the un-amended
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which was in force. However, the Act
itself was substantially amended w.e.f. 03.05.2018 and it was known
as Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018. Some of the
Page 10 of 16
amendments that have been brought into by way of amendment of
2018 is the ‘Specified Value’ in Section 2(1)(i) which was amended as
under:
“for the words “which shall not be less than one crore rupees,
the words “which shall not be less than three lakh rupees”
shall be substituted.”
20. Likewise, so far as Section 3, the constitution of the Commercial
Court is concerned the following amendments in Sub- Section (1) of
Section 3 whereby two provisos were substituted for the existing
proviso clause. It reads as under:
“Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary
original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after
consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification,
constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the
High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State
Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value
which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more
than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District
Courts, as it may consider necessary.”
21. So also there was further additional Sub-Section incorporated as
Section (1A) after Sub-Section (1) which also reads as under:
“(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State
Government may, after consultation with concerned High
Court, by notification, specify, such pecuniary value which shall
not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for
whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.”
22. In addition, the amendment was brought to Sub-Section (3)
wherein in the un-amended Sub-Section (3) the word ‘shall’ has been
substituted with ‘may’ and in Sub-Section (3) for the words in the un-
amended portion i.e. the Commercial Court Act ‘from amongst the
cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the State’ was amended to be
substituted and read as thus:
“Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a
court below the level of a District Judge.”
23.The aforesaid amendment in the said Commercial Courts Act
cameintow.e.f.03.05.2028.The effect of the aforesaid amendment to
Page 11 of 16
Section 2(1)(i) deals with the definition of ‘Specified Value’ and where
it has been held that all matters where the value in relationto the
commercial dispute is Rs.3,00,000/- and above would be one which
would be heard by the Commercial Courts. The limit of Rs.3,00,000/-
is substituted with the earlier limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. As a
consequence of the said amendment w.e.f. 03.05.2018, in the entire
country where the Commercial Courts Act is applicable, the value in
relation to the commercial dispute to decide whether it has to be heard
by the Commercial Court or not, stands replaced with the amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the State of Telangana
is no exception to this.
24. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion
that beyond 03.05.2018 every Suit which falls within the purview of a
commercial dispute and the value of the dispute is more than
Rs.3,00,000/- has to be transferred to the Commercial Court under
Section 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
/ plaintiffs that a special notification in this regard by the State in
consultation with the High Court is separately required is not tenable,
as clause(i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 does not require a further
notification by the Government in consultation with the High Court for
making the said amended provision to be applicable in the States. The
said contention so faras a separate notification by the State
Government in consultation with the High Court is one which is
required under Section 3. The amended Section 3 reads as under:
“3. Constitution of Commercial Courts.-(1) The State
Government, may after consultation with the concerned High
Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial
Courtsat District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose
of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those
Courts under this Act:
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary
original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after
consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification,
constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the
High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State
Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value
which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more
than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District
Courts, as it may consider necessary.]
Page 12 of 16[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
State Government may, after consultation with concerned High
Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall
not be less than three lakh rupess or such higher value, for
whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.]
(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the
concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of
the area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall
extend and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter
such limits.
(3) The [State Government may], with the concurrence of the
Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons
having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be
the Judge or Judges, of a [Commercial Court either at the level
of District Judge or a Court below the level of a District
Judge.]”
25.Chapter 2 of aforesaid amended Section 3 deals specifically so far
as constitution or establishment of Commercial Courts within the State
and the notification that is required is for the establishment of a
Commercial Court within the State and also in deciding to constitute
such number of Commercial Courts at the District level as it may deem
necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers
conferred on the Commercial Courts. The notification of the
Government in consultation with the High Court is also required to
decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts ifthere are
more than one in a District or in a State.”
15. It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of
detailed reasoning given in paragraph Nos.26and 27 with regard to
“Specified Value”. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.26 and 27
are again reproduced hereunder:
“26. In order to better understand the same, what is necessary to be
appreciated is that so far as the Specified Value in respect of the value
involved in a Suit which is otherwise commercial dispute, has been
brought down from Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. In the process,
if in a given District the number of Commercial Courts happens to be
more than one, in the said circumstances a notification is required
deciding pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of each such Court. Such an
Page 13 of 16issuance of notification is not contemplated under Section 2(1)(i) for
variance to be brought to the specific value of Rs.3,00,000/- by
notification by any of the State Governments. The issuance of
notification by the Government is strictly required under Section 3 for
establishment of Commercial Courts and for deciding pecuniary value
of each of the Courts so established in a District and also where the
High Courts have original civil jurisdiction to decide the pecuniary value
of original Suits filed in the High Courts and the Specified Value which
have to be filed at the District Courts.
27.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents /
plaintiffs so far as requirement of a special notification to decide
whether ‘Specified Value’ can be enhanced by the State Government
contrary to the amendment brought into the Commercial Courts Act in
the year 2018, particularly under Section 2(1)(i); even otherwise plain
reading of the provisos to Section 2 and Section 3 would also clearly
show that any notification that has to be issued must be fora value of
more than Rs.3,00,000/-, which in other words means that anything
above Rs.3,00,000/- and is a commercial dispute under the definition
of Section 2(1)(c) the matter is one which has to be dealt with or
referred to the concerned Commercial Court. With all due respect, this
Court would like to defer with the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this High Court in the case of M/s. Satyam Process Pvt. Ltd vs.
Purushottam Modani 3.”
16. In the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs.
K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had an occasion of dealing with the definition of Section 2(1)(c) in
respect of an agreement relating to an immovable property. In
paragraph No. 37 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:
“37. A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a
commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls
under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. “the
agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade
or commerce”. The words “used exclusively in trade or commerce”are
to be interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes “actually3
Order dated 22.01.2024 in C.R.P.No.44 of 2023
Page 14 of 16used” and it cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be used” or
“to be used”. It should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation
would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure
discussed above.”
17. A dispute of similar nature has come up before this High Court
in the case of Life Shine Medical Services Pvt. Ltd.vs. Alety
Jeevan Reddy and Ors 4, wherein in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, it
has been held as under:
10. In terms of the explanation to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 2015, a
commercial dispute does not cease to be so, merely because it
involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realisation
of monies out of immovable property given as security or involvesany
other relief pertaining to immovable property. Thus, so long as the
disputes arise out of a property which is being used in trade or
business, the dispute remains commercial. In the present case the
petitioner claims to have cleared the debts of the respondents herein,
such payments majorly relate to payment of salaries of staff
members, Dialysis Payment, Pharmacy balances, Ambulance services
etc., These payments admittedly relate to the hospital leased to the
respondents, which is an immovable property exclusively used in
trade or commerce.
11. Further the act of the petitioner in paying the debts of the
respondents in relation to hospital equipment and machinery
indicates that such payment was made to avoid attachment of said
equipment which would in-turn affect the running of the hospital.
Thus, the contention that the relief of recovery of money paidtowards
the respondents debts is not a commercial dispute within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act, 2015 does not find force
with this Court, as the payment made by the petitioner herein is
squarely covered by the explanation to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act,
2015. Therefore, in the view of this Court the disputes in the present
case are commercial in nature. The observations of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Blue Nile Developers Private Limited Vs.
Movva Chandra Sekhar and Ors 5, while discussing the definition of
4
2023 Law Suit (TS) 492
5
2021 SCC OnLine AP 3964
Page 15 of 16
‘commercial dispute’ are relevant as under:
’20. Hence from the above, it is clear that the “legislature”
has included the various types of commercial transactions
to bring under the fold of “commercial dispute” in case of
any dispute arises from any of those transactions. On a
careful reading of the above said provision of the Act, it is
obvious that the legislature has taken due care while
incorporating the above said clauses from (i) to (xxii) in
Section 2(1)(c) of the Act by avoiding the repetition of
words and sentences without effecting the full fledged
meaning of the same even on expansion of the said each
clause. Therefore, either giving any restrictive meaning or
reading of a clause in isolation and expansion of one word
only in the said clause would hamper and frustrate the
meaningful definition of the said clause on it’s expansion by
abrogating certain category of transactions from the
purview of the benefit of the above said Act which is not
otherwise the intendment of the legislature in bringing out
the said enactment.'”
18. In light of the above interpretation regarding Commercial
Court’s jurisdiction, it is pertinent to note that the present case
involves intellectual property rights with a specified value exceeding
Rs.3,00,000/-. The subject matter and the pecuniary jurisdiction
clearly establish that this suit falls within the ambit of the
Commercial Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, which specifically includes intellectual property matters under
Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) as commercial disputes, meets both in terms
of the commercial dispute and also on the basis of the specified
pecuniary threshold in the present case.
Page 16 of 16
19. In the given factual circumstances of the case and the
amended provision of the Commercial Courts Act, this Court is of
the firm view that the decision taken by the Trial Court is not
proper, legal and sustainable, and the same deserves to be and is
accordingly set aside. The instant Revision accordingly stands
allowed. As a consequence, this Court is inclined to allow
I.A.No.486 of 2024 filed by the petitioners herein under Order VII
Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC. The allowing of the instant
Revision would not render the respondent herein remediless. The
liberty stands reserved for the respondent to avail appropriate
remedies before the concerned Commercial Court.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 02.05.2025
GSD
[ad_2]
Source link