Pecuniary jurisdiction in commercial arbitration turns on pleadings-based specified value, with post-invocation interest excluded from computation.

Pecuniary jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is computed by applying Section 12(2) to the claim and counter-claim as pleaded, with interest counted only up to the date of receipt of the notice invoking arbitration because Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 fixes commencement of proceedings at that point. Interest accruing after invocation, including pendente lite and future interest, is excluded so that the specified value does not vary over time. GST and counter-claim components are considered as part of the pleaded computation. On the corrected calculation described in the text, the specified value falls below the court's threshold, and the petition is said to be returnable to the competent court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the basis of the correct computation of specified value under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, including the treatment of interest, GST, and counter-claim components.

Analysis: The specified value for a commercial arbitration dispute is to be determined under Section 12(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by aggregating the claim and counter-claim as stated in the respective pleadings. For jurisdictional purposes, only the interest component accrued up to the date of receipt of the notice invoking arbitration can be included, because Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 treats that date as the commencement of arbitral proceedings. Interest cannot be carried forward up to the filing of the Section 34 petition, as that would make the specified value fluctuate over time and defeat the jurisdictional threshold. Pendente lite and future interest, as well as components accruing after invocation of arbitration, are not to be counted for this computation. On the corrected calculation, the specified value falls below the pecuniary threshold of the Court.

Conclusion: The Court held that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and that the petition had to be returned for presentation before the competent court.

---