SANDHYA HOTELS PVT. LTD. Vs. AMRITHA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2016 passed in Memo SR.No.5667 of 2016 in O.S.No.947 of 2015 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, wherein the Memo filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit seeking transfer of the suit to Commercial Court, came to be dismissed, the present appeal came to be filed under Sec. 9 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The averments in the plaint in O.S.No.947 of 2015 would show that the second applicant/second defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff asking her to purchase a house bearing Municipal No.8-2-293/82/A/795, consisting of a ground floor with a super built up area of 12000 sft in Plot No.795 in Survey Nos.403/1 (old) and 120 (new) of Shaikpet village and 102/1 of Hakimpet village, situated within the approved layout of the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, claiming that his company viz., Sandhya Hotels private Limited, of which he is Managing Director, had entered into an agreement with Smt. M.Jayasree. It was further stated that the amount towards sale consideration has to be paid to the vendor and he will get the sale deed directly conveyed from Smt. M.Jayasree to the plaintiff. Believing the same, an agreement was entered into with the second defendant by the plaintiff. Between July and Nov. 2013, the plaintiff paid the amounts through cheques and RTGS to the second defendant and to its company i.e., the first defendant, amounting to Rs. 14.00 Crores. Though the second defendant has put the plaintiff in possession of the schedule property, in which the plaintiff set-up a boutique after developing the said property to suit her business requirements, but still the property is not registered in the name of the plaintiff. To her surprise, the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant got executed a sale deed in the name of the first defendant. When the same was confronted, the second defendant seems to have stated that he has done so because Smt. Jayasree was not agreeing for the above arrangement on account of some income tax issues. However, he promised to register the said property in favour of the plaintiff shortly. After much persuasion, the defendant agreed to execute a sale deed in the month of Jan. 2015. Though the plaintiff furnished all the requirements for getting the property registered, the second defendant did not turn up for registration. Referring to certain incidents, where the defendants cheated the plaintiff and others, O.S.No.947 of 2015 came to be filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Later on in Nov., 2016 a memo came to be filed before the said court by the defendants to transfer the case to the Commercial Court since the value involved is more than rupees One Crore and that the said court has become functus officio. Rejection of the said request, lead to filing of the present appeal under Sec. 9 of the Act.

(3.) The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Sec. 2(c) of the Act and as the value of the suit is more than rupees One Crore, the matter requires to be adjudicated only by a Commercial Court.