Section 24 CPC permits transfer of commercial suits despite non-compliance with Commercial Courts Act procedures.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. CIV.DJ 530/2020, Manoj Kakkar v. M/s Kiaasa Retail & Anr., pending before the District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to the concerned District Judge (Commercial Court), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

The suit was pending at the stage of the plaintiff’s evidence.

The respondents opposed the transfer, contending that Section 24 CPC could not be invoked in respect of commercial suits and that the plaint had not complied with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, including the prescribed format and Statement of Truth requirements.

The petitioner relied on Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Ltd. and Sherawali Developers LLP v. M/s Majesty Homes & Ors.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer a suit concerning a commercial dispute of specified value to a competent Commercial Court.

2. Whether non-compliance, at the stage of institution, with procedural requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015—particularly the prescribed plaint format and filing of a Statement of Truth—bars such transfer.

3. Whether objections concerning Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act or other procedural non-compliance must be adjudicated before or after transfer.

Section 24 CPC continues to apply to suits relating to commercial disputes of specified value because Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies the CPC subject to the amendments specified in the Schedule, and Section 24 has not been excluded or amended.

A Commercial Court constituted under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act is subordinate to the High Court for purposes of Section 24 CPC.

Procedural requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, including filing a plaint in the prescribed form and furnishing a Statement of Truth, may be complied with before the transferee Commercial Court and do not, by themselves, oust the High Court’s power of transfer.

Objections based on Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act or Order VII Rule 11 CPC remain available to the defendant and may be considered by the transferee court on merits.

The Court held that the respondents’ objection was no longer sustainable in view of the binding reasoning in Namita Gupta and Sherawali Developers LLP.

Since Section 24 CPC had not been excluded by the Commercial Courts Act and the proposed transferee court was subordinate to the High Court, the High Court retained jurisdiction to transfer the suit.

The absence of a Statement of Truth or other prescribed commercial-suit formalities did not invalidate the transfer; those requirements could be completed before the transferee Commercial Court.

Transfer would also avoid returning or restarting a suit that had already progressed to the plaintiff’s evidence stage, while preserving the respondents’ right to raise statutory and procedural objections before the transferee court.

Civil Suit No. CIV.DJ 530/2020 was transferred from the District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to the concerned District Judge (Commercial Court), West District, at the stage at which it then stood.

The petitioner was permitted to complete the requisite compliance under the Commercial Courts Act, including filing the Statement of Truth and other prescribed requirements, before the transferee court.

The respondents were expressly permitted to raise objections, including under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and regarding non-compliance with the statutory protocol, before that court.

The trial court was directed to transmit the records within four weeks, and the petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.