Case Title:Floral Colors India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. De Martini Hitkari Fine Products Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order:January 21, 2025
Case Number:WRIT PETITION NO. 1982 OF 2024
Neutral Citation:2025:BHC-AS:2864
Court Name:High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Judge:Justice Amit Borkar
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners (defendants) had filed a notice of motion before the Trial Court, seeking to convert a summary suit into a commercial suit and transfer it to the Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The plaintiff (respondent) opposed this request, asserting that it had the right to choose the appropriate jurisdiction for its suit.
The Trial Court rejected the petitioners’ request, leading them to file this writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Issues Raised:
1. Can defendants force a plaintiff to convert a summary suit into a commercial suit?
2. Does the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandate the transfer of all commercial disputes to the Commercial Court?
3. What are the limitations of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Reasoning & Analysis by the Court:
Plaintiff’s Right as Dominus Litis: The court reaffirmed the well-established principle that the plaintiff is dominus litis (master of the suit) and has the right to choose the forum and nature of the suit.
No Statutory Mandate for Forced: Conversion: The court clarified that unless a specific law mandates a particular forum, the plaintiff’s choice must be respected. Defendants cannot compel the plaintiff to change the suit’s nature.
Limited Power of the Court: Courts have the power to reject relief or dismiss a suit if it is found to be not maintainable, but they cannot force a plaintiff to change the nature of the suit.
Jurisdiction Under Article 227: The High Court’s supervisory powers are limited to ensuring procedural compliance and do not allow intervention in the plaintiff’s choice of litigation strategy.
Decision of the Judge
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, confirming that there was no error of jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioners’ request.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The court reiterated that the plaintiff retains the right to decide the forum and nature of the suit, and the defendants have no authority to alter it.
