# Karamveer Electronic Ltd v. Energo Import, Ahmedabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 969
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-26
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 788 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karamveer-electronic-ltd-v-energo-import-ahmedabad-ors-53789
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C. and returning plaint
for presentation before Commercial Court on the
ground that dispute arose out of commercial
transaction falling within ambit of Section
2(1)(c) read with Section 6 of Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, or whether civil court retained
jurisdiction to entertain the suit for mandatory
injunction directing defendants to honour Letter
of Credit issued in connection with international
trade transaction.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R. 11 -
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - ss. 2(1)(c),
6 - The plaintiff - appellant, a company
engaged
in
the
manufacture
of
transformers
and
allied
electrical
equipment, entered into agreement dated
31.03.2020 with defendant no.1, Energo
Import,
a
Government
of
Cuba
undertaking, for supply of transformers to
Cuba, with payment secured through
Letter of Credit issued by defendant no.3,
CAIXA Bank, on behalf of defendant no.1,
and payable through State Bank of India,
defendants nos.4 and 5 - Plaintiff supplied
goods vide invoices between November
2020 and November 2021, amounting to
Euro 940081.88, of which only Euro
303121.71
was
received,
leaving
a
balance of Euro 636960.57 unpaid despite
repeated reminders - Alleging failure of
defendants to honour the L.O.C. and
breach
of
international
banking
obligations, plaintiff instituted Original
Suit
seeking
a
mandatory
injunction
directing defendants nos.1 to 3 to honour
L.O.C. and for attachment of their funds in
State Bank of India - Defendant no.3
moved application under O. VII R. 11(d)
C.P.C.,
contending
that
dispute
was
commercial dispute of specified value
u/ss. 2(1)(c) and 6 of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, and thus triable only by
Commercial Court - Trial court upheld this
objection, returned plaint for presentation
before competent Commercial Court and
plaintiff, aggrieved, preferred the instant
First Appeal u/s 96 C.P.C. before High
Court.
Held: It is apparent from plaint that there was
export of merchandise by plaintiff, which was
only partly paid by defendant No.1, the payment
was secured by LOC issued by defendant No.2 &
3, who were bankers of defendant No.1 and
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plaintiff has filed suits for obtaining balance
payment of Euro 636960.57, by decree of
mandatory injunction - In view of this, whole
dispute is a commercial dispute falling within
definition of Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 - Paintiff has claimed
payment of about Rs.62 lacs from defendant
no.1 to 3, which is above specified value of
Rs.3 lacs defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as such, civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
- As per Section 6, where there is a
commercial dispute of a specified value, such
a suit is cognizable only by Commercial Court,
and civil court lacked jurisdiction - Thus, trial
court has not committed any illegality in
allowing defendant no.3's application under O.
7 R. 11 C.P.C. and returning the plaint for
presentation to proper court of jurisdiction -
Hence, appeal is meritless and dismissed.
[Paras 23 to 26] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S.
Infraspace LLP and another, (2020) 15 SCC 58
- referred to

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Commercial
Courts Act, 2015

List of Keywords
First Appeal u/s 96 C.P.C.; Application under O.
7 R. 11 C.P.C.; Returned the plaint for
presentation to proper court; Commercial
transaction;
Commercial
dispute;
Section
2(1)(c), 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015;
Specified value; Jurisdiction of civil court; Bar of
jurisdiction; Relief of mandatory injunction; Civil
court
had
jurisdiction;
Alternative
forum;
Erroneous order of trial court; Letter of Credit
(L.O.C.); Export of merchandise; Payment of
consideration; Obligation under international
banking laws and usages; Reimbursement
through internal arrangement; Supply of goods;
Balance
payment
due;
Cognizable
by
Commercial Court; Civil court lacked jurisdiction;

## Text

9 All. Karamveer Electronic Ltd. Vs. Energo Import, Ahmedabad & Ors.
969
interference from this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby
dismissed.

18. The impugned judgment and
decree of the trial court dated 25.01.2024 in
O.S. No.446 of 2020 (Khubi Ram Vs.
Bhoop Singh & others) is hereby affirmed.

19. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties shall
bear their respective costs.

20. Office is directed to prepare the
decree accordingly.

21. Office is directed to send back the
original trial court record, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 969
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 788 of 2025

Karamveer Electronic Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Energo Import, Ahmedabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Surya Shanker Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the trial court was
justified in allowing defendant's application
under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C. and returning plaint
for presentation before Commercial Court on the
ground that dispute arose out of commercial
transaction falling within ambit of Section
2(1)(c) read with Section 6 of Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, or whether civil court retained
jurisdiction to entertain the suit for mandatory
injunction directing defendants to honour Letter
of Credit issued in connection with international
trade transaction.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R. 11 -
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - ss. 2(1)(c),
6 - The plaintiff - appellant, a company
engaged
in
the
manufacture
of
transformers
and
allied
electrical
equipment, entered into agreement dated
31.03.2020 with defendant no.1, Energo
Import,
a
Government
of
Cuba
undertaking, for supply of transformers to
Cuba, with payment secured through
Letter of Credit issued by defendant no.3,
CAIXA Bank, on behalf of defendant no.1,
and payable through State Bank of India,
defendants nos.4 and 5 - Plaintiff supplied
goods vide invoices between November
2020 and November 2021, amounting to
Euro 940081.88, of which only Euro
303121.71
was
received,
leaving
a
balance of Euro 636960.57 unpaid despite
repeated reminders - Alleging failure of
defendants to honour the L.O.C. and
breach
of
international
banking
obligations, plaintiff instituted Original
Suit
seeking
a
mandatory
injunction
directing defendants nos.1 to 3 to honour
L.O.C. and for attachment of their funds in
State Bank of India - Defendant no.3
moved application under O. VII R. 11(d)
C.P.C.,
contending
that
dispute
was
commercial dispute of specified value
u/ss. 2(1)(c) and 6 of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, and thus triable only by
Commercial Court - Trial court upheld this
objection, returned plaint for presentation
before competent Commercial Court and
plaintiff, aggrieved, preferred the instant
First Appeal u/s 96 C.P.C. before High
Court.
Held: It is apparent from plaint that there was
export of merchandise by plaintiff, which was
only partly paid by defendant No.1, the payment
was secured by LOC issued by defendant No.2 &
3, who were bankers of defendant No.1 and
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plaintiff has filed suits for obtaining balance
payment of Euro 636960.57, by decree of
mandatory injunction - In view of this, whole
dispute is a commercial dispute falling within
definition of Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 - Paintiff has claimed
payment of about Rs.62 lacs from defendant
no.1 to 3, which is above specified value of
Rs.3 lacs defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as such, civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
- As per Section 6, where there is a
commercial dispute of a specified value, such
a suit is cognizable only by Commercial Court,
and civil court lacked jurisdiction - Thus, trial
court has not committed any illegality in
allowing defendant no.3's application under O.
7 R. 11 C.P.C. and returning the plaint for
presentation to proper court of jurisdiction -
Hence, appeal is meritless and dismissed.
[Paras 23 to 26] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S.
Infraspace LLP and another, (2020) 15 SCC 58
- referred to

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Commercial
Courts Act, 2015

List of Keywords
First Appeal u/s 96 C.P.C.; Application under O.
7 R. 11 C.P.C.; Returned the plaint for
presentation to proper court; Commercial
transaction;
Commercial
dispute;
Section
2(1)(c), 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015;
Specified value; Jurisdiction of civil court; Bar of
jurisdiction; Relief of mandatory injunction; Civil
court
had
jurisdiction;
Alternative
forum;
Erroneous order of trial court; Letter of Credit
(L.O.C.); Export of merchandise; Payment of
consideration; Obligation under international
banking laws and usages; Reimbursement
through internal arrangement; Supply of goods;
Balance
payment
due;
Cognizable
by
Commercial Court; Civil court lacked jurisdiction;
No illegality committed by trial court; Appeal is
meritless and dismissed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: First Appal No. - 788
of 2025
From Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2025
passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Court No.10, Meerut in
Original Suit No.1310 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Surya Shanker Pandey

Advs. for the Opposite Party:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. Heard Shri Surya Shanker Pandey,
learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal under Section
96 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiffappellant against the impugned judgment
and decree dated 08.07.2025 passed by the
Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Court No.10, Meerut in Original
Suit
No.1310
of
2024
(Karamveer
Electronics Ltd. vs. Energo Import and
others), whereby the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. of the defendant
no.3, CAIXA Bank, has been allowed, and
the trial court has returned the plaint for
presentation to the proper court by
concluding that the suit is relating to
commercial
transactions
between
the
parties, which is cognizable by the
Commercial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant submitted that the order of trial
court is erroneous, since the plaintiff filed a
suit for relief of mandatory injunction,
which is cognizable by the civil court.

4. Learned counsel submitted that
the civil court had the jurisdiction to grant
the relief sought by the plaintiff, as such,
the trial court erred in returning the plaint
for presentation to the proper court.
9 All. Karamveer Electronic Ltd. Vs. Energo Import, Ahmedabad & Ors.
971
5. With these submissions, it was
prayed that the appeal be admitted for
hearing and, thereafter, be decided on
merits, in accordance with law.

6.
The
plaintiff-appellant
has
annexed the copy of the plaint, which
discloses that the plaintiff-company is
engaged in manufacturing of transformers
and allied equipments in the factory at
Meerut, the defendant no.1 is a Govt. of
Cuba Undertaking Company created by
Resolution of Ministry of Foreign Trade by
Resolution No.117 dated 01.12.1977 and is
authorized
to
deal
with
import
of
transformers for Cuba.

7. It is the plaintiff?s case that the
defendant no.2 is the authorized Banker of
defendant no.1, who had issued Letter of
Credit (LOC) on behalf of defendant no.1
for purchase of goods from plaintiff and the
LOCs were to be reimbursed by defendant
no.3 by an internal arrangement between
defendant nos. 1 to 3.

8. It was further averred by the
plaintiff that he was to receive payment of
goods supplied by it to defendant no.1
through defendant no. 4 and 5, which are
the State Bank of India, Partapur and its
Branch situated at Ganga Plaza, Meerut.

9. The plaintiff further averred that
he
entered
into
an
agreement
with
defendant no.1 for supply of different types
of transformers on 31.03.2020 and it was
decided that the plaintiff shall be paid for
supply of above transformers by L.O.C. of
the Bank i.e. defendant no.3, payable at
State Bank of India, Partapur.

10. It was further averred by the
plaintiff that vide its Invoices dated
29.11.2020,
12.12.2020,
13.10.2021,
12.11.2021, dispatched the goods to Cuba
for defendant no.1 by Ship Consignment,
Invoices and Bill of loading etc. and the
goods were delivered to defendant no.1 and
as agreed previously, defendant no.3 issued
L.O.C. and payment advice from defendant
no.2 for Euro 940081.88, which is
equivalent to Rs.9,11,87,942.36 paise for
payment and out of the above amount, Euro
303121.71 was paid by defendant no.3 to
plaintiff through State Bank of India,
Partapur.

11. It was further averred by the
plaintiff that subsequently no payment
whatsoever was made to it in spite of
repeated reminders and messages. The
plaintiff further averred that under the
aforesaid
circumstances,
as
per
the
International Banking Laws, customs and
usages, the defendant no. 2 and 3 were
under
an
obligation
to
fulfil
the
commitment made by them to defendant
no.1, inter alia to the Government of Cuba,
but they have miserably failed and have not
only caused irreparable loss to the plaintiff
but also have caused loss to Indian
Economy/Government by holding over the
Foreign Exchange, which was to come to
India by this deal.

12. It is the case of the plaintiff that
for the goods supplied by it to defendant
no.1, the Bankers of defendant no.1 i.e.
defendant no.2 and 3 have failed to make
payment in terms of the above LOC and an
amount of Euro 636960.57 is due. The
plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:-

 "(A)
That by
a decree
of
mandatory injunction, commanding the
defendant nos. 1 to 3 to honour the LOC
No. B1CC120000000521 for Balance of
EURO 636960.57 equivalent to INR
61,78,120/- the LOC was issued for EURO
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
94008108 out of which EURO 303121 was
paid
in
favour
of
plaintiff
through
defendant no. 4.

 (B) That by decree of the court,
the court be pleased to attach the amount
of defendant no. 2 lying in CBS Branch of
State Bank of India, being account
no._______________in Foreign Exchange,
Ganga Plaza Branch of State bank of India
at Meerut."

13. The defendant no.3, CAIXA
Bank moved an application under Order 7
Rule 11 C.P.C. in the trial court, that from
the averments of the plaint, it is apparent
that there is a commercial dispute between
the parties, therefore, the jurisdiction would
lie with the appropriate Commercial Court.
It was further submitted that the dispute is
of commercial nature in terms of Section
2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, and hence the present suit lies before
the appropriate Commercial Court and in
view of Section 6 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, its jurisdiction was
barred.

14.
The
plaintiff-appellant
submitted his objections in the trial court,
in which, it was submitted that the
Commercial
Courts
Act,
2015
only
provided an alternative forum to decide
suits, but it does not either bar or ousts the
jurisdiction of civil court to try civil suits of
the nature.

15. It was further averred that
Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, specifically says that those suits of
which civil court cannot take cognizance
shall
also
be
not
entertained
by
Commercial Courts.

16. It was further averred that the
present suit was for the relief of injunction,
which was cognizable by civil court and
was not barred.

17. The trial court by impugned
judgment and decree dated 08.07.2025 has
allowed the defendant no.3?s application
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by
concluding that the dispute raised by the
plaintiff is a commercial dispute, which
falls within the definition of Section 2(c) of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
according to Section 6 of that Act, in all
such cases, where the jurisdiction vests
with the Commercial Court, the ordinary
jurisdiction of the civil court was barred.

18. I have heard the learned
counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and
perused the record.

19. Section 2 (1) (c) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, reads as
follows:

 "(c) "commercial dispute" means
a dispute arising out of?-

 (i)
ordinary
transactions
of
merchants, bankers, financiers and traders
such as those relating to mercantile
documents, including enforcement and
interpretation of such documents;

 (ii)
export
or
import
of
merchandise or services;

 *** ***
***

 Explanation.-
A
commercial
dispute shall not cease to be a commercial
dispute merely because---
9 All. Karamveer Electronic Ltd. Vs. Energo Import, Ahmedabad & Ors.
973
 (a) it also involves action for
recovery of immovable property or for
realisation of monies out of immovable
property given as security or involves any
other relief pertaining to immovable
property;

 (b) one of the contracting parties
is the State or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities,
or
a
private
body
carrying out public functions;"

20. Section 6 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, reads as follows:

 Section6:
Jurisdiction
of
Commercial Court-The Commercial Court
shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and
applications relating to a commercial
dispute of a Specified Value arising out of
the entire territory of the State over which
it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.

 Explanation.-- For the purposes
of this section, a commercial dispute shall
be considered to arise out of the entire
territory of the State over which a
Commercial
Court
has
been
vested
jurisdictiothatn, if the suit or application
relating to such commercial dispute has
been instituted as per the provisions of
sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

21. From the perusal of the plaint,
it is apparent that the plaintiff had supplied
transformers to defendant no.1 and for
securing
its
payment
a
Letter
of
Credit(LOC) of Euro 940081.88 was
opened in favour of the plaintiff by
defendant no.3, but since the whole
payment of goods supplied by the
plaintiff was not made and payment of
Euro 636960.57 was outstanding against
defendant no.1, as such, the plaintiff filed
the instant suit for mandatory injunction
for directing the Banker of defendant
no.1 i.e. defendant no.2 and 3 to honour
the above Letter of Credit(LOC).

22. The Apex Court in the case of
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited
vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another
(2020) 15 SCC 585, has held that 'a
matter will fall under the jurisdiction of
the Commercial Court or the Commercial
Division of the High Court on the
following factors:-

 (i) it shall be a commercial
dispute within the meaning of Section
2(1)(c) of the Act; and

 (ii) such commercial disputes
are of a specified value as per Section
2(1)(i) of the Act.'

23. It is apparent from the plaint
that there was export of merchandise by
the plaintiff, which was only partly paid
by defendant No.1, the payment was
secured by LOC issued by defendant
No.2&3, who were the bankers of
defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has filed
the suits for obtaining the balance
payment of Euro 636960.57, by decree of
mandatory injunction. In view of this, the
whole dispute is a commercial dispute
falling within the definition of Section
2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. The plaintiff has claimed payment
of about Rs.62 lacs from the defendant
no.1 to 3, which is above the specified
value of Rs.3 lacs defined in Section 2 (1)
(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,
as such, the civil court had no jurisdiction
to entertain the suit.

24. It is also apparent that, as per
Section 6, where there is a commercial
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispute of a specified value, such a suit is
cognizable only by the Commercial Court,
and the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

25. In view of the above facts, the
trial court has not committed any illegality
in
allowing
the
defendant
no.3?s
application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
and returning the plaint for presentation to
the proper court of jurisdiction.

26. Accordingly, the instant appeal
is meritless and is dismissed under Order
41 Rule 11 C.P.C. at the admission stage.

27. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 08.07.2025 is affirmed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 974
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ Tax No. 4630 of 2025

M/s Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Revisionist
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Nishant Mishra, Vedika Nath

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.S.G.I.,
Dhananjay
Awasthi,
Krishna
Agarawal, Kishna Mohan Asthana, Maneesh
Mehrotra, Saumitra Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the provisional attachment
carried out by the revenue with regard to two
bank accounts of the petitioner under S. 83 of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and the blocking of the electronic credit ledger,
purportedly on the ground that proceedings
have been launched under S. 74 of the Act.

Headnotes
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
-
S.
83
- Provisional
attachment
-
Draconian power - Formation of opinion -
Requirement
of
tangible
material
-
Absence of reasons - Attachment liable to
be quashed - S. 74 - No proceedings
actually initiated - Incorrect recital in
attachment order - There is not a whisper
of any specific requirement or ground -
Attachment wholly arbitrary - Blocking of
Electronic Credit Ledger - Requirement of
consideration of reply - Personal hearing -
Reasoned order to be passed.
Held:
Absence of Valid Reasons: We are of the
view that there is no reason provided for the
provisional attachment notice and the alleged
supportive reason that has been provided is a
completely ludicrous one - There is not a
whisper of any specific requirement or ground
at the present stage or formation of any
reasoned opinion for provisionally attaching the
said bank accounts.
Quashing of Orders: We, accordingly, quash
and set-aside the provisional attachment notices
dated July 23, 2025 with a direction upon the
authority concerned to have the same released
within a period of 48 hours from date.
Electronic Credit Ledger: With regard to
blocking of the electronic credit ledger, the
authorities are directed to look into the reply of
the petitioner, grant a personal hearing, and
thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law. The entire process should be
completed within a period of two weeks from
date. (Paras 7,8,9,11,12,13) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,
(2021) 6 SCC 771; CIT v. Kelvinator of India
Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 723; CIT v. Techspan (India)
(P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 685; R.D. Enterprises v.
Union
of
India,
2024:
AHC:149247-DB;
Amazonite Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,
2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 184 (Cal.).

List of Acts