Bombay HC: A dispute arising out of a singular transaction of assignment of debt cannot be considered a 'commercial dispute'

In the facts of this case, the dispute relating to the transaction of assignment of debt by the Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the Defendant No.1 not being a dispute arising out of an ordinary transaction of a merchant, financier or a trader, and obviously not a banker nor a dispute arising out of any of the items mentioned in Section 2(1)(c) (ii) to (xiii), the dispute relating to the breach of the agreement dated 7th July, 2023 would not be a commercial dispute arising out of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the said Act nor any other items at (ii) to (xiii) even if the purpose be otherwise commercial and therefore, would not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division of this Court. If the dispute as held is not commercial dispute, even if the dispute is above the specified value that would be of no consequence. Also the reliance upon the other sections of the said Act including Sections 4, 7 and 15 as well as the preamble of the said Act would in my view not assist the case of Mr. Narvekar’s clients.{Para 27}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 6341 OF 2024

IN

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 18 OF 2023

VARANIUM CLOUD LIMITED …APPLICANT

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ROLTA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. …PLAINTIFFS

VS

VARANIUM CLOUD LIMITED AND ANR. …DEFENDANTS

CORAM :ABHAY AHUJA, J.

PRONOUNCED ON: 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2024

Print Page

Supreme Court: Money Recovery Suit Won't Be Commercial Suit Unless Disputed Property Is 'Actually Used' In Trade and Commerce

 The above issue was considered in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

Limited v. K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585 where the implication of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) was construed. In

the concurring judgment, the following was expressed by Justice

Banumathi:

“37. A dispute relating to immovable property per se

may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a

commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause

(vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. “the

agreements relating to immovable property used

exclusively in trade or commerce”. The words “used

exclusively in trade or commerce” are to be

interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes

“actually used” and it cannot be either “ready for

use” or “likely to be used” or “to be used”. It

should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation

would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast

tracking procedure discussed above.” {Para }

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2986/2024

S.P. VELAYUTHAM & ANR. Vs M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

 Date : 26-02-2024 .

Print Page

Supreme Court: Commercial courts Act does not excludes application of S 5 of limitation Act

 The vexed question which faces us is whether, first and foremost,

the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, as has been argued by Dr. George. The first important thing to note is that section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act does not contain any provision akin to section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act only provides for a limitation period of 60 days from the date of the judgment or order appealed against, without further going into whether delay beyond this period can or cannot be condoned.{Para 33}

34. It may also be pointed out that though the object of expeditious disposal of appeals is laid down in section 14 of the Commercial Courts Act, the language of section 14 makes it clear that the period of six months spoken of is directory and not mandatory. By way of contrast, section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act read with the Schedule thereof and the amendment made to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, would make it clear that the defendant in a suit is given 30 days to file a written statement, which period cannot be extended beyond 120 days from the date of service of the summons; and on expiry of the said period, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and the court cannot allow the written statement to be taken on record. 

 Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, by way of

contrast, applies an intermediate period of 60 days for filing an appeal, that is, a period that is halfway between 30 days and 90 days provided by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act.

41. For all these reasons we reject the argument made by Shri George that the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded given the scheme of Commercial Courts Act.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 995 OF 2021

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Vs M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD

Author: R.F. Nariman, J.

Dated: March 19, 2021.

Print Page

Whether Commercial courts should hold Summary trial even if there are disputed questions of facts?

Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. {Para 92}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (COMM) 1155/2018, I.As. 13597/2018 and 14309/2018

Decided On: 30.10.2019

Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs.   Kunwer Sachdev

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manmohan, J.

Citation: 2019 SCCOnline Del 10764

 The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted with the intent to improve efficiency and reduce delay in disposal of commercial cases. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"to have a streamlined procedure which is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts and in the Commercial Divisions by amending the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. The proposed case management system and provisions for summary judgment will enable disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner."

Print Page

Delhi HC: Suit for recovery of immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce and for other incidental reliefs is maintainable before Commercial courts Act

“Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of-

(vii) agreements relating to immoveable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;

Explanation.-A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because-

(a) It also involves action for recovery of immoveable property or for realisation of monies out of immoveable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immoveable property;

11. Clause (c) defines the “commercial dispute” in the Act to mean a dispute arising out of different sub-clauses. The expression “arising out of” in the context of clause (vii) refers to an agreement in relation to an immoveable property. The expressions “arising out of” and “in relation to immoveable property”1 have to be given their natural and general contours. These are wide and expansive expressions and are not to be given a narrow and restricted meaning. The expressions would include all matters relating to all agreements in connection with immoveable properties. The immoveable property should form the dominant purpose of the agreement out of which the dispute arises. There is another significant stipulation in clause (vii) relating to immoveable property, i.e., the property should be used exclusively in trade or commerce. The natural and grammatical meaning of clause (vii) is that all disputes arising out of agreements relating to immoveable property when the immoveable property is exclusively used for trade and commerce would qualify as a commercial dispute. The immoveable property must be used exclusively for trade or business and it is not material whether renting of immoveable property was the trade or business activity carried on by the landlord. Use of the property as for trade and business is determinative. Properties which are not exclusively used for trade or commerce would be excluded.

18. Lease of immoveable property is dealt with under the Transfer of Property Act in Chapter V thereof. The said enactment vide section 105 defines what is lease, lessor, lessee and rent and vide section 107 stipulates how leases are made and can be terminated. Leases can be both oral or in writing. Noticeably, sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) in Section 2 of the Act does not qualify the word “agreements” as referring to only written agreements. It would include oral agreements as well. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act deal with the effect of non-payment of rent, effect of holding over and most importantly the determination of the leases or their termination. It cannot be disputed that action for recovery of immoveable property would be covered under sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) when the immoveable property is exclusively used in trade or commerce. Read in this manner, we do not think that claim for recovery of rent or mesne profit, security deposit etc., relating to immoveable property which was used exclusively in trade or commerce should not be treated as a commercial dispute in view of the language, ambit and scope of sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) to Section 2 of the Act. These would qualify and have to be regarded as commercial disputes. The use of expression“any other relief pertaining to immoveable property” would mean disputes relating to breach of agreement and damages payable on account of breach of agreement would be covered under sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) to Section 2 of the Act when it is arising out of agreement relating to immoveable property exclusively used in trade and commerce.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Sanjiv Khanna and A.K. Chawla, JJ.)

Jagmohan Behl  v.  State Bank of Indore 

FAO (OS) No. 166/2016

Decided on September 22, 2017, 

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10706

Print Page

Gujarat HC: Suit for specific performance of an agreement for development of a plot of land can not be regarded as a commercial dispute

Therefore, if the dispute falls within any of the clause 2(c) the dispute can be said to be "commercial dispute" for which the Commercial Court would have jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that before the learned Commercial Court the original plaintiff relied upon section 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(xx) of the Commercial Courts Act only. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has candidly admitted and/or conceded that the case shall not fall within clause 2(c)(i); 2(c)(ii) or 2(c)(xx) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is required to be noted that before the learned Commercial Court it was never the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that case would fall within section 2(c)(vii) of the learned Commercial Court. Despite the above we have considered on merits whether even considering section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, the dispute between the parties can be said to be "commercial dispute" within the definition of section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act or not? Considering section 2(c)(vii), "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. As observed hereinabove, at the time of filing of the suit and even so pleaded in the plaint, the immovable property/plots the agreements between the parties cannot be said to be agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. As per the agreement between the party after getting the plots on lease from the GIDC, the same was required to be thereafter developed by the original defendant No. 1 and after providing all infrastructural facilities and sub-plotting it, the same is required to be given to other persons like the original plaintiff. It is the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that as the original defendant No. 1 has failed to provide any infrastructural facilities and develop the plots and therefore, a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement has been filed. There are other alternative prayers also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the agreement is as such relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. It is the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that as in clause (vii) of section 2(c), the phraseology used is not "actually used" or "being used" and therefore, even if at present the plot is not used and even if it is likely to be used even in future, in that case also, section 2(c)(vii) shall be applicable and therefore, the Commercial Court would have jurisdiction. The aforesaid has no substance. As per the cardinal principle of law while interpreting a particular statute or the provision, the literal and strict interpretation has to be applied. It may be noted that important words used in the relevant provisions are "immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce". If the submission on behalf of the original plaintiff is accepted in that case it would be adding something in the statute which is not there in the statute, which is not permissible. On plain reading of the relevant clause it is clear that the expression "used" must mean "actually used" or "being used". If the intention of the legislature was to expand the scope, in that case the phraseology used would have been different as for example, "likely to be used" or "to be used". The word "used" denotes "actually used" and it cannot be said to be either "ready for use" or "likely to be used"; or "to be used". Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal (Supra) and it is observed and held that the word "used" denotes "actually used" and not merely "ready for use". It is reported that SLP against the said decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Appeal From Order No. 199 of 2017 and Civil Application No. 8083 of 2017 in Appeal From Order No. 199 of 2017

Decided On: 10.07.2017

 Vasu Healthcare Private Limited  Vs.   Gujarat Akruti TCG Biotch Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and B.N. Karia, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 Guj. 153

Print Page

Whether suit for recovery of money can be filed as Commercial Suit?

The counsel for the plaintiffs, on being asked to show under which Clause of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the present claim constitutes a commercial dispute, draws attention to clause (i) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act but which provides for “ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents” to constitute commercial disputes.

30. However, all suits for recovery of monies cannot fall under Clause (i) supra of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. Suffice it is to state that the suit is not based on any transaction relating to mercantile documents. Thus, the suit is found to have been wrongly filed as a commercial suit.

31. The Registry to re-number the suit as an ordinary suit.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)

Kailash Devi Khanna   v.  DD Global Capital Ltd.

CS(COMM) 34/2016 & IAs No. 7958/2018 

Decided on August 28, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9954

Print Page

Delhi HC: Definition of commercial dispute in Commercial court Act is not inclusive

The submission of Mr. Lall that this Court should construe the expression "commercial dispute" widely to include all commercial disputes, even if they do not strictly fall within clauses (i) to (xxii) of Section 2(1) (c), cannot be accepted for the reason that the Parliament has consciously given the precise definition as to what a commercial dispute "means". It is not an inclusive definition and the specific matters which qualify as relating to "commercial disputes" have been specifically set out in clauses (i) to (xxii) aforesaid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 3187/2015 and I.A. Nos. 22366-22368/2015

Decided On: 03.02.2016

 Havells India Limited  Vs.  The Advertising Standards Council of India

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vipin Sanghi, J.

Print Page

Important provisions of Commercial courts Act 2015

1. Short title, extent and commencement.

2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—(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;

(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;

(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;

(v) carriage of goods;

(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;

(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;

(viii) franchising agreements;

(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;

(x) management and consultancy agreements;

(xi) joint venture agreements;

Print Page

When agreement relating to immovable property can be termed as commercial dispute?

In view of the above, it becomes clear that the dispute raised by respondent no. 1 in the suit for specific performance against the petitioners is covered under the definition of commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) read with Explanation (a) of the Act of 2015. This is particularly so, when the said agreement is read with the Memorandum of Understanding, also of the same date, executed between the parties showing beyond any doubt that the agreement relates to immovable property, which is to be used exclusively in trade or commerce. The respondent no. 1 has not denied and, in fact, it has accepted before this Court about the existence of the said Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties. It is evident that the parties entered into the agreement to develop the property in question by undertaking construction activity or to further sell the same for commercial gains, in terms of the very objects of the two parties i.e. petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1. There is no dispute about the fact that the "commercial dispute" between the parties is beyond the amount of Rs. 1 Crore.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 4080 of 2018

Decided On: 08.02.2019

Kanchanganga Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  Monarch Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2019(5) MHLJ 953

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to plead that suit is tenable before Commercial Courts Act?

 Further on referring to the cause of action in para

21, the plaintiff has thereafter referred in para 22 to the

jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide the matter.

It would be appropriate to extract the same which reads

as hereunder:

“22. Jurisdiction: The Plaintiff states that the

Defendants having their office at Vadodara land which

is the subject matter of the instant suit is situated

within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court

and hence this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to

hear and decide the matter.”

Even though in the paragraph describing jurisdiction

the plaintiff has stated with regard to the territorial

jurisdiction since the office and land being at Vadodara,

there is no reference indicating the reason for which the

plaintiff pleads that the Court which is the Commercial

Court exclusively constituted to try the commercial

disputes has jurisdiction to try the instant suit. In that

background, a perusal of the prayer made in the plaint

would essentially indicate that the suit is one seeking for

specific performance of the terms of MoU whereunder it

is agreed that the Mortgage Deed be executed. Even if

the immovable property under the Mortgage Deed was

the subject matter it was necessary to plead and

indicate that the same was being used in trade or

commerce due to which the jurisdiction of Commercial

Court is invoked. Without such basic pleadings in the

plaint, any explanations sought to be put forth

subsequently would only lead to a situation that if an

objection is raised, in every suit a consideration would

be required based on extraneous material even to

ascertain as to whether the intended transaction

between the parties was of such nature that it is to be

construed as a commercial dispute.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7843 OF 2019

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. 

A.S. Bopanna,J.

Dated:October 04, 2019.

Print Page

Whether Commercial court Act is applicable to Commercial Disputes not of a Specified Value?

 I therefore hold that the amendments introduced to the CPC by the Commercial Courts Act are only applicable to Commercial Disputes of a Specified Value and not Commercial Disputes not of a Specified Value such as the present suit. Consequently, amongst other amendments introduced to the CPC by the Commercial Courts Act, the amendment to the CPC mandating that a Written Statement in a Commercial Suit has to be filed within 120 days, will not apply to Commercial Disputes not of a Specified Value.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Review Petition (L) No. 15 of 2019 in Commercial Suit No. 316 of 2018 

Decided On: 01.06.2019

Bharat Bhogilal Patel  Vs.  Leitz Tooling Systems India Private

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.J. Kathawalla, J.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for court to hear other side prior to transfer of proceeding to Commercial court?

From the aforesaid proposition which has been laid down even from the bare reading of the plaint itself, what has been prayed for is the alleged transaction which has taken place and, there was no issue related to a commercial dispute and, therefore, simply because a transaction of immovable property is questioned the same ipso facto would not constitute commercial dispute and as such the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Court below is found to be perverse, contrary to the provisions of law itself. Hence, such apparent error committed in exercising discretion/jurisdiction deserves to be corrected in considered opinion of the Court.

11. Additionally, the Court is also of the view that at least it was obligatory on the part of the learned Judge to put this fact of issue involving commercial dispute to the parties to the proceedings. Even if no actual hearing is to be given to the parties as stipulated in one of the decisions of this Court since by virtue of Section 15 of the Act automatically the proceedings shall have to be transferred but to arrive at that conclusion it was obligatory on the part of the learned Judge to satisfy himself so succinctly on the basis of averments that dispute of the plaint falls with the purview of Commercial Court Act. It appears that while passing an order of transfer, the learned Judge has committed a serious error in exercising jurisdiction in sending the matter to commercial Court without having satisfied himself about the controversy where it falls within the definition of commercial dispute or not. Valuation of the property is not a sole yardstick to transfer the proceeding to the commercial Court. Hence, this value which has been taken note of is no doubt relevant but that itself is not sufficient enough to transfer the suit to the commercial Court. The requirement of satisfying the issue where it falls within the definition of Section 2(1)(C) of the Act or not ought to have been examined before passing the brief order. Be that as it may, it further appears that what has been exercised by the Court below is a power of transfer. Here is the case in which there is no pleading at all that the property in question is exclusively being used for the commercial purpose and there is also no assertion that it is likely to be used for the exclusive commercial purpose. And as such basic element of commercial dispute is completely missing from the pleading and in that context essentially the learned Judge though not supposed to exercise the power of transfer, still a specific order of transfer is made which prima facie appears to be not within the domain of the learned trial Judge. Essentially, the power of transfer lies with the High Court and District Court by virtue of Section 24 of the CPC and a bare reading of it clearly stipulates that while passing the order of transfer the learned Judge is not invested with the jurisdiction. Hence, ex facie, the order in question suffers from non-application of mind. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Special Civil Application No. 1236 of 2019

Decided On: 05.04.2019

 Uday Autolink Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govindji Becharji Thakor

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.J. Shastri, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Guj 130

Print Page

Whether commercial court has jurisdiction to grant injunction as per S 9 of arbitration Act?

Admittedly, in the present case, the dispute pertains to arbitration matter. The Petitioner is seeking the relief of injunction not under any other law but under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the subject matter of the arbitration is admittedly not less than Rs. 1 crore and therefore, the subject matter of arbitration being a 'commercial dispute' of a 'specified value', it has to be held that, Commercial Court will alone have the jurisdiction to entertain this arbitration application.

17. If the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner that this being an application simpliciter for injunction, Civil Court alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain it, is to be accepted, then the very object of enacting Section 10(3) and of establishing the Commercial Courts will be frustrated. As a matter of fact the ingenuity of the legal profession is such that any dispute can be brought under the wide umbrella of the injunction suit with the claim that the relief claimed is not susceptible to monetary value. However, the Court has to see the real nature of the relief, which is sought and decide the jurisdiction of the Court accordingly.

18. Here, in the case, the real nature of the dispute is the arbitration agreement, the subject matter of which is above Rs. 1 crore; it is a dispute of commercial nature. Hence, even if, the relief claimed is simpliciter for injunction, as the subject matter of dispute falls within the jurisdiction of Commercial Court, in view of provisions of Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, the learned Principal District Judge, Satara, has rightly transferred the arbitration application to the Commercial Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3119 of 2018

Decided On: 05.04.2018

 D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 457

Print Page

Whether claim for recovery of rent,mesne profit,security deposit can be treated as commercial dispute?

 In order to appreciate the controversy, we would first reproduce the relevant definition clause, i.e. 2 (1) (c) (vii), as also the explanation thereto:-

"Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

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

(vii) agreements relating to immoveable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;

Explanation.-A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because-

(a) It also involves action for recovery of immoveable property or for realisation of monies out of immoveable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immoveable 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;"
It cannot be disputed that action for recovery of immoveable property would be covered under sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) when the immoveable property is exclusively used in trade or commerce. Read in this manner, we do not think that claim for recovery of rent or mesne profit, security deposit etc., relating to immoveable property which was used exclusively in trade or commerce should not be treated as a commercial dispute in view of the language, ambit and scope of sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) to Section 2 of the Act. These would qualify and have to be regarded as commercial disputes. The use of expression "any other relief pertaining to immoveable property" would mean disputes relating to breach of agreement and damages payable on account of breach of agreement would be covered under sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) to Section 2 of the Act when it is arising out of agreement relating to immoveable property exclusively used in trade and commerce.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

FAO (OS) No. 166/2016

Decided On: 22.09.2017

 Jagmohan Behl Vs. State Bank of Indore

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjiv Khanna and A.K. Chawla, JJ.

Print Page