9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of the petition on ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court entertain this Petition. On 13th February, 2023, this Court had referred the matter to the Joint Registrar ("JR") for computation of Specified Value. Accordingly, vide order dated 19th July, 2023 ("JR Order"), the JR has ascertained the Specified Value to be INR 1,79,08,623.63. The Petitioner contests this valuation, asserting that the determination is erroneous as it fails to consider several crucial components, which, if accounted for, could significantly impact the calculated Specified Value. In light of these conflicting positions, this Order will address and decide upon the issue of the Specified Value and the Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. Background 2. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The argument put forth is that interest on the cost of litigation should be calculated from the date of each respective invoice raised by Respondent's legal counsel. Similarly, for interest on counterclaims, it is contended that the accrual of interest should commence from the date when the counterclaim was filed. Further, the Respondent claims that the Goods and Services Tax ("GST") was not claimed by the Respondent in its Statement of Claim, and consequently, the GST amount as well as interest on the same could not have been computed into the Specified Value. Respondent asserts that the actual Specified Value is only INR 1,79,08,623.63, which encompasses claim amount of INR 1,18,34,263 and counter-claim of INR 60,74,360.23. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt (XX) 52,53,142.88/- 52,53,142.88/- 18% Interest pendente lite and future interest (from date of Notice invoking Arbitration till the date of realization) (YY') 2 years + 10 months + 18 days 2 x (18% of 52,53,142.88/-) + 10/12 x (18% of 52,53,142.88/-) + 18/365 x (18% of 52,53,142.88/-) 18,91,131.44 + 7,87,971.433 + 46,630.6382 = 27,25,733.51 TOTAL AMOUNT (XX + YY') 79,78,876.39/- AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE COUNTERCLAIM (B') (XX + YY') 79,78,876.39/- TABLE 3 SPECIFIED VALUE Amount (INR) AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE CLAIM (A'') (X+ Y'+ Z+ W'+ G'') 1,21,21,511.2 AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE COUNTER CLAIM (B') (XX + YY') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Order allowing the Claimant's claim towards Legal Costs amounting to Rs. 4,65,594/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four Only) along with interest @ 18% per annum." (b) GST will not be applied to the 'Cost of Litigation', but it will be applicable only to the 'Risk and Cost Amount'. This is because the Respondent, in their statement of claim, did not request the inclusion of GST on the cost of litigation. (c) Interest on the counter-claim should accrue from the date the counterclaim was filed, not from the date on which arbitration was invoked. This is in line with the specific request made by the Petitioner in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest @ 18% per annum from the 'date of counter-claim', and the submissions of the Petitioner mention that the cause of action for counter-claim arose when the contract was illegally terminated. Therefore, the interest is applicable from the date of cause of action. Analysis and directions. 8. The submissions advanced by both parties, as well as the analysis done by the JR contains inaccuracies, particularly on the aspect of component of interest which is part of the Specified Value. The Petitioner's calculation sheet, as presented above, posits the date of the filing of the instant petition, i.e., 21st August 2022, as the 'date of realisation' / endpoint for computing interest. This assumption, which has not been challenged by the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim up until the filing date of petition under Section 34 of the Act. Accepting such a method would imply that in any arbitration case, the Specified Value would continually get revised. Consequently, if the Specified Value is initially below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, it would eventually fall within the jurisdiction of a High Court simply due to the accrual of interest over time. This outcome would contravene the legislative intent behind establishing a specific threshold for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts. 11. Our analysis is aided by reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in National Seeds Corporation v. Ram Avtar Gupta 2021:DHC:4174-DB, wherein the Court took into consideration only the portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
