2019 (8) TMI 1881 - HC - Indian Laws

Maritime claim - Inherent jurisdiction of Commercial Court at Rajkot to entertain and decide the said petition - seeking stay on further proceedings of Execution Petition - HELD THAT - The bare reading of the definition of the word Commercial Dispute includes within its compass a dispute arising of the clauses provided under section 2(c)(i) to (xxii). It is an admitted position that the original dispute was filed as a commercial dispute before the English Courts and a decree has been passed and the same would not change its nature and character at the stage of execution and as succinctly set out by the learned Commercial Court in the impugned order the petitioner was the defendant before the English Courts. It is crystal clear that the liability of the petitioner is based upon the maritime claim, which is a commercial dispute and the personal guarantee which has been given by the petitioner is under commercial dispute, which arose before the English Court. It clearly appears from the record that the decree has become final as the petitioner has not been able to point out before this Court that it has been challenged by the petitioner before the competent appellate jurisdiction, which has become final in November 2017 and thereafter, the respondent herein has preferred an application for its execution before the competent court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commercial Court at Rajkot (now Jamnagar) has no jurisdiction is totally meritless - What is sought to be executed by the respondent is a maritime claim as per decree by the Commercial Court at England and therefore, the dispute in the present matter is a commercial dispute as rightly held by the Commercial Court at Rajkot in all four circumstances as narrated in the impugned judgment. The record clearly indicates that the petitioner has participated before the English Commercial Court and has not contended or objected that it is not a commercial dispute. Even independently examining the same, the Commercial Court at Rajkot has come to the conclusion that it is a commercial dispute and that Commercial Court at Rajkot, now at Jamnagar has inherent jurisdiction to try and decide the execution petition filed by the respondent - the record indicates that having filed objections under section 13 of the CPC before the Commercial Court at Rajkot, only with an aim and object to delay the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed the present application exhibit 19 and on its dismissal, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Commercial Court at Rajkot, while dealing with application at exhibit 19, has threadbare considered the same and has correctly interpreted the provisions of the Act as well as the provisions of section 126 of the Indian Contract Act in particular. It would not be out of place to record that having participated in the proceedings before the English Commercial Court, having given a guarantee and the judgment of English Court having become final, only with a view to throw spanner in the execution of such decree, the present petition is filed only with a view to create hurdle and delay the execution proceedings, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby rejected in limine with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one week with Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Rajkot.
2. Nature of the dispute as a commercial dispute.
3. Execution of the foreign decree.
4. Personal guarantee as a commercial dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Rajkot:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Rajkot to entertain and decide the execution petition. The petitioner argued that the execution petition should lie within the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jamnagar, which has territorial jurisdiction. The court, however, noted that the properties of the petitioner are situated at Jamnagar and as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Rajkot Commercial Court had the jurisdiction. The court further mentioned that the proceedings of Commercial Execution Petition No. 4 of 2018 originally filed before the Commercial Court, Rajkot, now stand transferred to the Commercial Court at Jamnagar as per the amendment in the Act.

2. Nature of the Dispute as a Commercial Dispute:
The petitioner contended that the personal guarantee given does not constitute a commercial dispute as defined under the Act. The court, however, clarified that the original dispute was filed as a commercial dispute before the English Courts and a decree was passed. The court emphasized that the nature and character of the dispute do not change at the stage of execution. The court referred to Section 2(c) of the Act, which defines "commercial dispute" to include disputes arising from maritime claims. The court concluded that the liability of the petitioner is based on a maritime claim, which is a commercial dispute, and hence, the execution petition is maintainable before the Commercial Court having jurisdiction.

3. Execution of the Foreign Decree:
The respondent filed the Commercial Execution Petition to enforce the decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court of England and Wales. The court noted that the decree has become final and the certificate for enforcement of the decree in a foreign country has been granted by the Commercial Court at England. The court observed that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the English Commercial Court and did not object to the nature of the dispute being commercial. The court held that the decree passed by the English Court, which is a maritime claim, is enforceable as a commercial dispute in India.

4. Personal Guarantee as a Commercial Dispute:
The petitioner argued that the personal guarantee provided does not fall under the definition of a commercial dispute. The court, however, referred to the judgment of the English Court, which indicated that the personal guarantee was given to secure the dues of the Gujarat Company, and the dispute arose from a maritime claim. The court noted that the personal guarantee covered worldwide assets of the guarantor and was unconditional and irrevocable. The court held that the personal guarantee is part of the commercial dispute, and the liability of the petitioner as a surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor. The court confirmed that the Commercial Court at Rajkot (now Jamnagar) has jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, confirming the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Rajkot (now Jamnagar) to entertain the execution petition. The court held that the dispute is a commercial dispute arising from a maritime claim, and the personal guarantee provided by the petitioner is part of this commercial dispute. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for filing the petition with an intent to delay the execution proceedings. The interim direction given by the court was vacated, and the Civil Application was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →