Karnataka High Court
WP/15718/2026 of SRI VIKYATH Vs M/S A M RAJAGOPALAN SETTY SONS AND COMMISSION AGENTS on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010328132026 NC: 2026:KHC:52329 WP No. 15718 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 15718 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VIKYATH S/O LATE DILIP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 15718 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIKYATH
S/O LATE DILIP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 6-6-125, ANNAM GARDENS,
KAWADIGUDA, SECUNDRABAD,
TELANGANA - 500 380.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.K. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. A.M. RAJAGOPALAN SETTY SONS
AND COMMISSION AGENTS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
SHOP NO. 4, 2ND CROSS,
APMC YARD, BATAWADI,
TUMKUR - 572 103,
REP. BY ITS PARTNER,
A.R. SREENATH.
2.
SRI. SETTIGARI SRINIVASULU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
M/S FORTUNE BIO-TECH LIMITED,
REG. OFFICE AT R/AT 6-6-125,
ANNAM GARDENS, KAWADIGUDA,
SECUNDRABAD, TELANGANA - 500 380.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OFINDIA PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 250/2019 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU. B.
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN COM. O.S. NO. 71/2025
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC.,
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed impugning the order dated 20.09.2025 passed in O.S. No.250/2019 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, whereby the Trial Court directed transfer of the pending suit to the Commercial Court for being tried by the said Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court committed an error in transferring the suit for being tried by the Commercial Court. It is contended that, instead of transferring the suit, the Trial Court ought to have returned the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the jurisdictionally competent Commercial Court.
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel further submits that the other preconditions for maintaining the suit as a commercial suit have not been satisfied and, therefore, the order directing transfer of the suit is unsustainable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. The present suit was instituted before the jurisdictional Civil Court much prior to the establishment of the Commercial Court. Upon constitution of the Commercial Court, and when an objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court, the Trial Court proceeded to transfer the matter to the Commercial Court for being tried by the said Court.
6. The direction issued by the Trial Court is in conformity with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 15(2) of the Act specifically provides that suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value, pending before any Civil Court in any district, shall be
HC-KAR
transferred to the Commercial Court constituted under the Act upon the constitution of such Commercial Court.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Trial Court was justified in transferring the pending suit to the Commercial Court. Therefore, the contention that the plaint ought to have been returned for presentation before the jurisdictionally competent Commercial Court cannot be accepted at this stage.
8. All other contentions raised by the petitioner, including those relating to the other requirements for maintaining the suit as a commercial dispute, are left open for consideration by the appropriate Court in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3