Suit by Chanda Kochhar against ICICI bank for retiral dues transferred by Bombay High Court from commercial to civil division

The suit filed by former chief executive officer (CEO) of ICICI bank, Chanda Kochhar against the bank seeking retiral benefits, was transferred by the Bombay High Court from its commercial division to regular civil division [ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Chanda Kochhar]..Justice NJ Jamadar held that the cause of action arising in the suit was not a commercial dispute that would be governed by the Commercial Courts Act (CCA).In view of this, he ordered the registry to take off the file of the suit from the commercial division of the High Court and transfer the same to the regular original civil division governed by the Civil Procedure Code.The Bombay High Court being a charter court has original jurisdiction based on territory and value involved in the dispute. This means that the Court can be approached as a court of first instance by way of suits. In 2015, after CCA was implemented, a commercial division was added, which governs the suits being filed under the Commercial act..After Kochhar filed suit against her former employer, the bank filed an interim application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking return of the plaint so that the same can be filed in the appropriate court having jurisdiction to entertain it..The application filed through Veritas Legal stated that the suit was filed as a commercial suit under the provisions of the CCA.Under Section 7 of the CCA, a commercial court has jurisdiction only to entertain suits and applications relating to “commercial disputes” of a specified value.The application stated that for commercial courts to exercise jurisdiction, the subject matter of the suit should fall in one of the categories mentioned under the Act.However, the present dispute is not a commercial dispute, the plea stated, which meant that CCA had no application and the commercial division had no jurisdiction.The bank, thus, sought for the suit to be returned and filed in an appropriate court..Kochhar in her reply filed through Rashmikant and Partners stated that the application ought to be dismissed in limine (at the threshold).It stated that the application was not maintainable before the High Court.The reply stated that the application is misconceived as the question about whether a dispute is a commercial dispute or not is a matter that can be decided only after the hearing of the suit.That application has been filed belatedly only to delay hearing of Kochhar’s urgent interim application, it was contended.The plaint asserted that the dispute was regarding the purported termination of Kochhar’s aforesaid contract as the bank’s managing director and CEO by ICICI and the bank’s wrongful repudiation of the earlier agreement where the Bank had accepted Kochhar’s early retirement. “…the claim in suit is clearly a dispute arising out of a management agreement and also out of an agreement for provision of services” the reply stated.In view of this, Kochar sought that the bank's application be dismissed..Kochhar sought specific performance of her former employer’s contractual obligations towards benefits due to her since her early retirement from the bank on October 4, 2018.Kochhar stated in her suit that the bank was fully aware of the terms of reference and scope of enquiry when entering into a contract with Kochhar that granted her certain benefits unconditionally.She claimed that the bank later reneged from its contractual commitments flowing from its acceptance letter, without any justification.In any event, the bank could not have terminated a person who had already retired, the suit stated.The Court after hearing both parties chose to rule against Kochhar as regard the maintainability of the suit.