Manoj Kakkar vs M/S Kiaasa Retail Pvt Ltd And Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010358162025
+ TR.P.(C.) 98/2025
MANOJ KAKKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate.

versus

M/S KIAASA RETAIL PVT LTD AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nishant Mittal, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the
1
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking transfer of the Civil Suit
2
being CIV.DJ 530/2020 titled as “Manoj Kakkar v. M/s. Kiaasa
Retail and Anr.” pending before the learned District Judge-02, West
3
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the concerned Court of the
learned District Judge (Commercial Court), West District, Tis
4
Hazari Courts, Delhi .

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit that
the Civil Suit is presently pending before the learned Trial Court and
is at the stage of Plaintiff's evidence.

1
CPC
2
Civil Suit
3
learned Trial Court
4
learned Transferee Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:07:25
TR.P.(C.) 98/2025 Page 1 of 5

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents objects
to the present transfer on the ground that the provisions of Section 24
of the CPC would not apply to Commercial Suits.
4. He furthermore submits that the Commercial Courts Act,
5
2015 prescribes specific requirements for institution and conduct of a
commercial suit, including filing of the plaint in the prescribed manner
and furnishing of a Statement of Truth, and since the aforesaid
requirements have not been complied with in the present case, it is
submitted that the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC cannot be
permitted to override the provisions of the CC Act.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the Judgments of this Court
6
in Sherawali Developers LLP v. M/s Majesty Homes & Ors. and
7
Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Ltd. and submits that the objection
raised by the Respondents is no longer res integra and open for
consideration.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and, with their able assistance, has perused the material on
record and considered the Judgments handed over across the Bar.
7. It is noted that the aforesaid objections raised by the learned
counsel for the Respondents have already been considered and
discussed in detail by this Court in Namita Gupta (supra) and in
Sherawali Developers LLP (supra).
8. In Namita Gupta (supra), this Court held that Section 24 of the
CPC continues to operate in respect of suits relating to commercial

5
CC Act
6
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3963
7
2024 SCC OnLine Del 143
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:07:25
TR.P.(C.) 98/2025 Page 2 of 5

disputes of specified value and that the requirements prescribed under
the CC Act do not, by themselves, take away the jurisdiction of this
Court to transfer such proceedings. The relevant observations in the
said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
“63. As noted hereinabove, Section 16 of the Act provides that the
provisions of the CPC shall apply to any Suit in respect of
Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value, subject to the amended
provisions thereof as provided in the Schedule appended to the Act.
Section 24 of the CPC is not a provision which has been amended
by the said Schedule. It, therefore, continues to apply in full force
to a Suit in respect of a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value.
If the Legislature wanted to take away this power from the Court, it
would have expressly stated so by deleting the said provision in the
Schedule to the Act; it did not do so. There is also no implied
exclusion of this power, as this power, in no manner, is in conflict
with any provisions of the Act.
64. As far as non-compliance with Section 12A of the Act is
concerned, the Transferee Court shall consider the said objection
on merits upon the transfer of the Suit. The transfer of the Suit does
not, in any manner, affect the right of the defendant to contend that
the Suit has been filed without any cause of action or is otherwise
barred by any provision of law or is liable to be dismissed under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for any other reason, including for
the failure of the plaintiff to initiate pre-suit mediation as mandated
under Section 12A of the Act. These objections would remain open
to the defendant even on the transfer of the Suit under Section 24
of the Act.
65. As held hereinabove, a Commercial Court, constituted under
Section 3 of the Act, would be a Court subordinate to the High
Court. Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Nandini J. Shah, (2018) 15 SCC 356 . Therefore, there is no reason
to exclude the applicability of Section 24 of the CPC to a Suit in
relation to a Commercial dispute of a specified value. The first
issue is answered accordingly.”

9. The similar issue was thereafter considered by this Court in
Sherawali Developers LLP (supra), wherein it was also held that the
procedural requirements under the CC Act, including those relating to
the plaint and Statement of Truth, can be duly complied with upon
transfer of the proceedings to the competent Commercial Court. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:07:25
TR.P.(C.) 98/2025 Page 3 of 5

relevant observations in the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
“13. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has raised
two other issues. The first is that a plaint which is required to be
filed as a commercial suit has to follow a particular protocol, which
is distinct and different from that which is to be followed in non-
commercial suits.
14. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner would re-institute a plaint before the Transferee Court in
accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act,
including the requirement of filing a statement of truth and other
such formalities. This, he points out, was also allowed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in Namita Gupta.
15. In the present proceedings, out of the four defendants, three
have already filed written statements and replications in response
thereto have also been filed by the petitioner. As such, the suit is at
a fairly advance stage of pleadings. It would do no good to anyone
to return the suit at this stage.
16. The petitioners are, however, directed to ensure that the plaint
is represented in accordance with the protocol envisaged by the
Commercial Courts Act.
17. Mr. Agarwal raises, as a second contention, the argument that
the suit was liable to be dismissed as having been instituted without
compliance with the requirement of pre-institution mediation under
Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.
18. It shall remain open to the respondent to raise this issue before
the Transferee Court. If the said issue is raised, the Transferee
Court would deal with the issue and take a decision thereon in
accordance with law and after giving an opportunity to learned
counsel for the petitioner.
19. Subject, therefore, to the petitioner filing a proper plaint before
the transferee court in accordance with the protocol envisaged with
the Commercial Courts Act, this Court transfers Civil Suit No.
21/2020 (Sherawali Developers LLP v. Majesty Homes) from the
Court of Ms. Ruchika Singla (ADJ-03, North-West District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi) to the concerned Commercial Court, North-West
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.”

10. A perusal of the aforesaid Judgments would show that the
objection raised by the Respondents, that the provisions of Section 24
of the CPC cannot be invoked in respect of a commercial dispute
merely on account of non-compliance with the procedural
requirements under the CC Act, is no longer tenable. The absence of a
Statement of Truth or other prescribed requirements at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:07:25
TR.P.(C.) 98/2025 Page 4 of 5

institution would not denude this Court of its power under Section 24
of the CPC, and the requisite compliance can be undertaken before the
learned Transferee Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the present Petition is allowed and
accordingly the Civil Suit being CIV.DJ 530/2020, titled Manoj
Kakkar v. M/s. Kiaasa Retail & Anr. , pending before the learned Trial
Court is directed to be transferred to the Court of the learned
Transferee Court, at the stage at which it presently stands. Any
requisite compliance under the CC Act, including the filing of the
Statement of Truth and other prescribed requirements as directed by
Paragraphs 16 and 19 of the Judgment in Sherawati Developers LLP
(supra), may be carried out in accordance with law.
12. Needless to state that any objections available with the
Respondent, inter alia , the objection relating to Section 12A of the CC
Act or non-compliance with the requisite protocol under the CC Act
may be taken in accordance with law before the Transferee Court.
13. The learned Trial Court is requested to transmit the case records
to the learned Transferee Court within a period of four (04) weeks
from the date of this Order, whereafter the matter be listed before the
learned Transferee Court accordingly.
14. The present Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026/nd/jk

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:07:25
TR.P.(C.) 98/2025 Page 5 of 5