M/S. VIVIENDA LUXURY HOMES LLP, REP. THR. ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER NITIN BHATIA v. M/S. GREGORY AND NICHOLAS THR. ITS PARTNER AND 2 ORS
Discusses principles of jurisdiction, amendment of pleadings, and the interplay between procedural and substantive law.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1048
Decision Date: 27-06-2025
List of Laws
Indian Partnership Act, 1932; Constitution of India, 1949; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932: The judgment mentions that the respondent no. 1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, no specific sections or provisions of the Act are discussed or interpreted in the judgment.
- Constitution of India, 1949: Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 are invoked by the petitioner to file the writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order. The judgment discusses the court's writ jurisdiction under these articles but does not delve into a detailed interpretation of their scope or application beyond the specific facts of the case.
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: The judgment discusses Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which defines commercial disputes. The respondents argued that the dispute was not commercial in nature under this section because the plaint did not disclose that the immovable property was used exclusively for trade and commerce. The court refrains from settling the issue of whether the plaint discloses the essential ingredients of a commercial dispute. The judgment also notes that Commercial Courts are empowered to take cognizance of commercial disputes as defined under section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment refers to Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that the Trial Court appeared to have proceeded based on principles emanating from it, but that it was not applicable in this case. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is mentioned as providing the procedure for regulating amendment of pleadings, while Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is mentioned as giving the substantial power to grant such amendment. Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is discussed in the context of an objection regarding jurisdiction, with the respondents arguing that a court lacking jurisdiction cannot grant an amendment that confers jurisdiction upon itself. The judgment also refers to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that a case tried on merits should not be reversed purely on technical grounds unless it occasions a failure of justice.
🔒 For Members Only