Cases Valued Below ₹10 Lakhs Pending Before Commercial Courts Need Not Be Transferred Despite Increase In Pecuniary Limit: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that cases pending before commercial courts in the State as on 18.03.2022 which have a pecuniary value less than Rs.10 lakh shall continue before the commercial courts.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a transfer of such pending cases was not necessary since the Government Order increasing the pecuniary limit of commercial courts did not communicate the need for the same.

"Something specific in terms of statutory language, either by express words or words indicative of a necessary intendment, would have been required for mandating the transfer of pending cases. In Annexure-A3 nothing in this regard is mentioned mandating transfer of pending cases. Therefore, the pending cases as on 18.03.2022, having valuation less than Rs.10 lakh involving commercial dispute shall continue before the Commercial Courts concerned."

The Court was adjudicating upon a transfer petition seeking the transfer of a suit pending before the Commercial Court to the District Court on the ground that the commercial court does not have jurisdiction.

The suit was filed by the respondent herein before the District Court in 2019 alleging trademark infringement by the petitioner. Meanwhile, in February 2020, a Government Order was published notifying that Commercial Courts have jurisdiction over commercial matters having a pecuniary value of Rs.3 lakh and above. 

Since the suit was valued at 6 lakhs, the District Court transferred the case to the nearest commercial court under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Thereafter, in March 2022, another Government Order was issued enhancing the pecuniary value of a commercial suit to be tried by a Commercial Court to Rs.10 lakh and above. 

Accordingly, the petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction before the commercial court. However, the Commercial Court held that it had the jurisdiction to try the case without passing a speaking order.

The petitioner thus approached the High Court seeking the transfer of the suit to the District Court. 

Advocate C. Harikumar appearing for the petitioner zealously urged that as per the latest Government Order, the pecuniary value of a suit involved in commercial dispute is Rs.10 lakh and above and therefore the commercial courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit having a valuation of Rs.6 lakhs.

On the other hand, Advocate B. Krishna Mani appearing for the respondents argued that when a statute is amended without giving retrospective effect, the same is prospective in operation and, therefore, the said amendment shall not affect the pending proceedings.

The question before the Court was if the amendment was retrospective in nature and if would apply to all pending cases.

The Court noted that in Kunnapadi Kalliani v. Lekharaj [1996 KHC 271], while considering the retrospective effect of an amendment to the Kerala Civil Courts Act, it was held that there was nothing in the amending Act either expressly or by necessary implication taking away the right of appeal which had accrued to the appellant on his commencement of the lis. While making the amendment of 1996, the legislature had similarly enhanced the valuation of the subject matter from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2 lakh.

Justice Badharudeen admitted that the latest Government order is procedural in nature, and ideally would have retrospective effect unless a contrary intention emerges from the statute.

However, since the Order had not expressed or implied the transfer of pending cases before the commercial courts, the Single Judge ruled that they may continue to be decided by the commercial courts. 

Nevertheless, the Court clarified that on the administrative side, it can pass orders regarding pending matters if such a course of action is necessary in the interest of justice, since as per the Government Order, all the Sub Courts in the State have been notified as Commercial Courts.

As such, the transfer petition was dismissed. 

Case Title: Alex G. Muricken v. Murickens Marketing System LLP & Anr. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 390

Click Here To Read/Download The Order