Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side)

Order Date: July 14, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Kedarnath Tradecomm LLP & Ors. and Omkar Tradecomm LLP & Ors. (appellants) versus Mayank Agarwal & Ors. (respondents).
  • Two appeals (APO No. 41 of 2024 and APO No. 42 of 2024) and three cross‑objections (OCOT 3, OCOT 4, OCOT 5 of 2024) were consolidated for hearing as they involved the same natural persons and similar legal issues.
  • The underlying disputes arose from Section 9 petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: AP No. 850 of 2022 (filed by Kedarnath Tradecomm LLP and partners) and AP No. 851 of 2022 (filed by Omkar Tradecomm LLP and partners), both filed on December 20, 2022 in the non‑Commercial Division of the High Court.
  • A single judge granted an ex‑parte ad interim injunction on January 30, 2023, and the respondents filed applications to vacate this order on February 2, 2023. The judge treated the vacating applications as affidavits‑in‑opposition on February 27, 2023.
  • The judge reserved judgment on May 11, 2023 and delivered the impugned judgment and order on June 15, 2023, dismissing the Section 9 petitions, vacating the interim injunction, and awarding costs, on the ground that the petitioners had relied on forged and fabricated documents.
  • The appellants contend that the non‑Commercial Division lacked jurisdiction because the matters are commercial disputes of “Specified Value” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and that the judge had a “determination to take up commercial matters” between December 2022 and May 2023, rendering the filing in the non‑Commercial Division immaterial.
  • The respondents argue that the filing itself was void of jurisdiction, that Section 12A of the Act 2015 (mandatory pre‑institution mediation) was not complied with, and that the Practice Directions (2021) require return of improperly filed suits to the Commercial Division, with no power to cure the defect by consent.
  • The Court examined the statutory framework: the Commercial Division was constituted on July 16, 2016; the State Government notification of March 20, 2020 set the pecuniary jurisdiction at amounts exceeding Rs 10 lakhs; Sections 7 and 10 of the Act 2015 mandate that all suits and applications involving commercial disputes of Specified Value be heard by the Commercial Division; Section 12A is mandatory; the 2021 Practice Directions prohibit the Ordinary Original Civil Division from entertaining such matters and prescribe return under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.
  • The Court concluded that the Section 9 petitions were filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, making the subsequent orders (including the interim injunction and the final judgment) nullities. The “same judge” theory from Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. was inapplicable because the proceedings were instituted after the Commercial Division came into existence.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned judgments and orders dated June 15, 2023 are set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
  • AP 850/2022 and AP 851/2022 are dismissed.
  • Appeals APO 41 of 2024 and APO 42 of 2024, together with cross‑objections OCOT 3, OCOT 4, and OCOT 5 of 2024, are disposed of without any order as to costs.

Topics: Jurisdiction, Commercial Courts Act