AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J
In this matter, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked on the basis of the recital in para 26 of the petition, to the effect that the valuation of the
property involved exceeds ₹ 2 crores. At the same time, court fees were paid, on the petition, by treating it as a petition for injunction, and not on the
basis of the valuation of the property.
On the last date of hearing, i.e. 10th July, 2020, I had expressed my misgivings regarding the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis
of the value of the property, without paying proper court fees therein.
I had opined, tentatively, that, if the value of the property was being used to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, court fees would have to be paid
thereon, whereas, if a mere injunction is being sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court, possessed of pecuniary
jurisdiction, given the valuation of the injunction, would have to be approached.
Mr. Harshbir Singh Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner, had taken time to take instructions.
Today, Mr. Harshbir Singh Kohli appears and seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional court, based on the
value attributed to the prayer for injunction.
Leave and liberty, as prayed for, is granted and the petition is permitted to be withdrawn accordingly.
Needless to say, in view of this direction, the valuation of the present petition, as urged in para 26 of the petition thereof, would not stand in the way
of exercise of jurisdiction by the competent court.
The Registry is directed to release the original documents, filed by the petitioner along with the petition, so that he could present the same before the
appropriate forum/court within a period of two days.