JANSET LABS PVT. LTD. Vs. SUDHA ANALYTICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is proprietary concern engaged in the business of leasing imported hi-tech/advance technology machineries to various enterprises for their activities. The petitioner has approached the respondent to import "SCIEX QTRAP4500 SYSTEM" an enhanced high performance hybrid triple quadrupole/linear ion trap LC-MS/MS Spectrometer to be installed in their premises to meet their commercial demands for their business activities. Based on the said request respondent imported said machine from Singapore vide invoice dtd. 28/9/2020 and installed the same in the premises of the petitioner. In terms of the agreement, petitioner is liable to pay Rs.13,74,740.00 each month as lease amount excluding GST/other statutory taxes and on remittance of 12 months lease amount, the ownership rights get transferred to the petitioner company. While so, disputes arose on the issue of remittance of monthly lease amount. As on 25/10/2021 respondent claimed Rs.1,19,17,928.00from the petitioner. Contending that in spite of repeated requests, the amount is not remitted, respondent sought to invoke Arbitration clause incorporated in the lease agreement and in the process to protect his interests in the interregnum period, he filed C.O.P No. 20 of 2021 in the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar. In the said C.O.P., petitioner filed I A No. 2 of 2022 taking recourse to Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of CPC praying the Court to reject the main petition as barred under law.

(2.) It was contended that specified value of the dispute involved is less than Rs.1.00 crore, therefore, Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application filed under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to petitioner, he has paid Rs.87,15,720.00 and balance amount to be paid is Rs.97,39,243.00, therefore, the amount involved is less than Rs.1.00 crore and Commercial Court has no jurisdiction. The Court below, rejected the said application by order dtd. 10/2/2022. Hence, this Revision.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Sharad Sanghi and learned counsel for respondent Sri Sriram Polali.