SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, December 28, 2024

Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3282

†
In the High Court of Bombay
(BEFORE BHARATI DANGRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others …

Appellants (Original Plaintiffs);
Versus
Janus Aviation Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent (Original
Defendant).
Commercial Appeal No. 03 of 2024
Decided on October 10, 2024
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ritesh Dawda, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Deoul Pathak, Advocate i/b Mr. Ishaan Chhayya, Advocate for the
respondent.
P.C.
1. The short point that arises for consideration in the present
commercial appeal is, whether the dispute staked in the suit instituted
by the New India Assurance Company Limited along with four other
Insurance Companies against the defendant for subrogated recovery of
an amount of USD 31,77,696.98 (equivalent to Rs. 24,69,07,055) along
with pendente lite and future interest would lie on the commercial
division, under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘Act of
2015’)
We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Ritesh Dawda appearing for
the plaintiffs, who have filed the present appeal, being aggrieved by
the impugned order passed below Exh.12 on 13.02.2024, upon an
application filed by the defendant, under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, to return the plaint, to be presented before the
proper court.
We have also heard Mr. Deoul Pathak, the learned counsel for the
respondent (original defendant) at whose instance, the impugned order
is passed.
We have perused the plaint as well as the application filed by the
defendant along with the reply filed and ultimately the order passed
thereupon on 13.02.2024, thereby allowing the application (Exh.12)
and directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs.
2. The plaint filed by the plaintiffs, the insurer of Aircrafts of Indigo
Airlines specifically pleaded that the suit is for subrogated recovery of
damages of plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 along with the pendente lite and future
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, December 28, 2024
Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

interest and the claim of the plaintiffs was staked on the premise that
they are entitled for the damages from the defendant, a company
engaged in business of providing ground handling services at Airport
for the losses suffered by them due to its negligence and as the dispute
in the suit arose out of an insurance agreement, it was to be captioned
as a commercial dispute in terms of Section 2 (c)(xx) of the Act of
2015.
A careful reading of the pleadings in the plaint, would disclose that
the suit is filed against the defendant on account of the amount that is
repaid by the plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 to Interglobe Aviation Limited
(Indigo) on account of the damages suffered by Indigo's Airline, in an
accident caused due to the alleged negligence of the defendant at Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport, Nagpur on 26.05.2018.
It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs insured aircrafts of Indigo,
including the aircraft involved in the incident, vide the Policy No.
93000043171000000006. The Policy type being “Airline
Hull” (including spares) & Liability Insurance” and also by another
policy, classified us “Aviation Hull Deductible Insurance” to the
percentage of insurance shared by the five plaintiffs as stated in the
plaint.
The incident, which is referred to, relate back to 26.05.2018, when
an aircraft of Indigo Airlines-ATR-72-600 parked at Bay No. 4 at the
Airport at Nagpur was ready to be operated between Nagpur to
Hyderabad and at the relevant time, it is alleged that the defendant
company was operating the Airport, Nagpur and was responsible for
providing Ground Handling Services to Go Air and Air Asia.
On the date of the incident, the defendant had their passenger step
ladders/parked at the Ground Service Department area and at the
relevant time, Indigo was not availing ground handling services from
the defendant. As such, the defendant was under an obligation to act
only towards the companies to which it was providing the services
operating at the Airport. However, at around 18.09 hours, following
weather warning was received by the Airport Operation Command
Centre (AOCC) from Air Traffic Control (ATC), with effect from the
specifications stated therein, it caused a storm and pursuant to the
passing of the storm, the aircraft remained parked stationary at Bay No.
4 but the ladder belonging to the defendant was blown by wind and
travelled to a distance of approximately 100 meters, before coming to a
halt and it struck the left wing trailing edge of the aircraft, causing
significant damage to it.
At the relevant time, the aircraft was loaded with passengers,
waiting for ATC approval, but due to the said incident, it could not take
off and the passengers were required to be offloaded.
The above incident resulted into joint investigation and the Safety
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, December 28, 2024
Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigation Coordinator along with the parties including the

defendant, the representatives of the airport authorities Mihan India
Limited (MIL) and Indigo's flight safety and ramp safety
representatives carried out a detailed investigation of the incident and a
report was furnished analysing the probable cause of the incident as
being the non-operational equipments, in the parking area without
being safely secured.
3. After the investigation, the insurer/underwriter of Indigo
appointed McLarens Aviation as their loss adjuster to assess the loss
caused to the Aircraft of Indigo and for deciding quantum of the same.
Pursuant thereto, when the survey was conducted by the Aviation
Surveyor of McLarens, the quantum of damages were set out in the
final report which has been adjudged to be as USD 3,202,676.98.
4. A lot of correspondence ensued with the defendant and by letter
dated 30.07.2019 issued by the HFW to the counsel of the defendant,
the detailed losses suffered by the plaintiffs due to negligence of the
defendant were disclosed and the copies of the entire correspondence
including the aforesaid communication form part of the plaint.
Ultimately, upon service of legal notice on 24.01.2020 on the
defendant, when the defendant did not pay any heed to its liability,
where it was alleged that the plaintiffs suffered a substantial loss of
USD 31,77,696.98 due to sole negligence of the defendant and
accusing the defendant of wilful neglect of its obligation and liability,
the suit for subrogated recovery for realization of the amount due to the
plaintiffs was instituted.
5. Upon perusal of the pleadings in the plaint, we specifically
enquired with the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as regards any
privity of contract between the Indigo and the defendant and his
answer is in the negative.
We also scanned through the pleadings, to reflect the same, but
unfortunately could not find any such averment, which would lead us to
derive an inference about privity of contract between the plaintiffs and
Janus Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
6. The defendant raised an objection under Order VII, Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, by specifically pleading that the ‘commercial
dispute’, though the plaintiffs specifically stated to be so arising out of
an ‘insurance agreement’ and, therefore, falling it within Section 2 (1)
(c)(xx) of the Act of 2015, would not be so.
The defendant primarily raised three objections as regards the
dispute to be entertained as a commercial dispute through the suit,
namely, there should be a transaction or commercial relationship of
‘insurance or reinsurance’ between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
However, as the plaintiffs are relying upon a purported commercial
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Saturday, December 28, 2024
Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

relationship of insurance between the plaintiffs and the Interglobe

Aviation Limited (Indigo) which has purportedly assigned its right
against the defendant to the plaintiffs. It was, therefore, urged that
there is no relation or privity of contract with the defendant and any
commercial relationship or transaction with the plaintiffs and a third
party cannot be used for the purpose of categorizing the dispute raised
through the plaint to be a ‘commercial dispute’.
The second ground on which the relief was premised in the
application, was that the cause of action to file the suit did not arise out
of any commercial dispute or commercial transaction or contractual
breach, but it was based on tort.
Apart from this, it is also specifically averred that if the cause of
action in the subject matter of the suit did not fall within the purview of
Section 2 (1)(c) (xx) of the Act of 2015, being under the head of
insurance and reinsurance, then it would not fall under any of the other
categories of ‘Commercial Dispute’ as set out in Section 2(1)(c) of the
Act of 2015 and, therefore, the plaint must be returned.
Responding to the application filed by the defendant raising an
objection about entertaining the suit as commercial dispute, the
plaintiffs had filed an exhaustive reply supported by an affidavit.
7. On 13.02.2024, the learned Judge considered the rival arguments
advanced, and by invoking the authorities pronounced in the case of
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15
SCC 585, determining the jurisdiction of the commercial Courts and
specifically holding that only when the dispute actually answered the
definition of ‘commercial dispute’ as provided in Section 2 (1)(c) of the
Act of 2015, it must be entertained by the commercial suits and that a
strict construction to the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act is
required or else it will defeat the very object and purpose of the
enactment being speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes,
the Additional District Judge found substance in the objection.
8. On considering the rival contentions, and by specifically referring
to the pleadings in the plaint, the court extracted the gist of the
pleadings and in Paragraph 11 observed to the following effect:—
“11. From over all pleadings of the plaint the gist extract can be
carved out is that now the plaintiffs want to enter into the shoes of
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) to claim damages from the
defendant as far as the loss caused to the aircraft. The question is
whether the suit instituted by the Indigo itself against the defendant
company to claim damages would be the commercial suit. The
answer to this question would decide the fate of the plaintiffs in this
suit. To that effect, I should say that clause (xx) of Section 2 (1)(c)
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, will not help the plaintiffs, as
this clause only speaks about the insurance and reinsurance.”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Saturday, December 28, 2024
Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recording that there is no privity of contract between Indigo and the

defendant company in respect of the insurance or reinsurance and also
there was no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant about
any insurance or reinsurance, the application filed under Order VII,
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by directing the
plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs.
9. In addition, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent, has
also placed reliance upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of
Delhi High Court in case of Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C. v. Airports Authority
of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8088, when the suit was filed for
recovery of an amount as damages for loss suffered by the plaintiff on
account of the damage to the aircraft of the plaintiff at Calicut
International Airport and which loss, according to the plaintiff, is
attributable to the defendants.
The counsel for the defendants specifically raised an objection that
the plaintiffs had titled the suit as a commercial suit invoking Section 2
(1)(c)(iv) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, when the
same is not applicable.
Referring to the particular clause, being specified as “arising out of
transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipments
and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same”, it
was concluded that the defendant was right in his contentions that a
claim for damages caused to the aircraft would not fall within the said
clause.
The said conclusion was supported by the observations in Paragraphs
9 and 15 which read to the following effect:
“9. The counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff, in the
replication to the written statement, has pleaded that though the
suit as originally filed was by the airline but since the airline has
recovered insurance, the insurer is now pursing the suit. He thus
states that the suit would also fall in clause (xx) of Section 2 (1)(c)
constituting disputes arising out of insurance and re-insurance as
commercial disputes.
15. The Legislature, in the Commercial Courts Act has not defined
commercial disputes as disputes arising out of all commercial
transactions. Instead, the Legislature has opted to specify the 22
transactions listed in clauses (i) to (xxii) of Section 2 (1)(c) of the
Commercial Courts Act, as the transactions, disputes arising
wherefrom will constitute a commercial dispute. That being the
position, every dispute arising from a commercial transaction,
without the same falling in any of the clauses, cannot constitute a
commercial dispute within the meaning of Commercial Courts Act.”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Saturday, December 28, 2024
Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited (cited supra), the Apex

Court, while pronouncing upon the strict construction of the provisions
of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Act of 2015, has specifically observed as
under:
“13………Having taken note of the submission we feel that the very
purpose for which the CC Act of 2015 has been enacted would be
defeated if every other suit merely because it is filed before the
Commercial Court is entertained. This is for the reason that the suits
which are not actually relating to commercial dispute but being filed
merely because of the high value and with the intention of seeking
early disposal would only clog the system and block the way for the
genuine commercial disputes which may have to be entertained by
the Commercial Courts as intended by the lawmakers. In commercial
disputes as defined a special procedure is provided for a class of
litigation and a strict procedure will have to be followed to entertain
only that class of litigation in that jurisdiction. If the same is strictly
interpreted it is not as if those excluded will be non-suited without
any remedy. The excluded class of litigation will in any event be
entertained in the ordinary civil courts wherein the remedy has
always existed.
14. In that view it is also necessary to carefully examine and
entertain only disputes which actually answers the definition
“commercial disputes” as provided under the Act. In the instant
case, as already taken note neither the agreement between the
parties refers to the nature of the immovable property being
exclusively used for trade or commerce as on the date of the
agreement nor is there any pleading to that effect in the plaint.
Further the very relief sought in the suit is for execution of the
mortgage deed which is in the nature of specific performance of the
terms of Memorandum of Understanding without reference to nature
of the use of the immovable property in trade or commerce as on the
date of the suit. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, we
are of the opinion that in the present facts the High Court was
justified in its conclusion arrived through the order dated 1.3.2019
impugned herein. The Commercial Court shall therefore return the
plaint indicating a date for its presentation before the Court
havingjurisdiction.
11. Keeping the aforesaid observations, as a guiding factor, it is
necessary that only those disputes which are commercial disputes
within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Act of 2015 shall be
entertained by the Commercial Courts or the Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts and it is held that the
entries therein shall be strictly construed in the order under challenge,
the learned Judge has correctly observed that upon reading of the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Saturday, December 28, 2024
Printed For: 23LLB071 Khushi Sharma, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

plaint, as regards absence of privity of contract between the defendant

and the Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo), we are in complete
agreement with the conclusion drawn and the learned counsel for the
appellants (original plaintiffs), on specifically asked, do not dispute the
fact that there is no privity of contract with the defendant.
In the wake of the above, since the present proceedings that is in
the form of the suit do not arise of the agreement of insurance or
reinsurance, as contemplated under 2(1)(c)(x) of the Act of 2015, we
find no fault with the impugned order.
12. In the wake of the above, since we do not find any legal infirmity
in the impugned order upholding the same, the commercial appeal is
dismissed.
———
†
Nagpur Bench

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.