For a suit to be considered a commercial dispute, it should meet both the requirements of falling within the definition of a commercial dispute and having a specified value of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. The court also directed the plaintiff to state the specified value of the suit as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. Until the specified value is determined, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable based on other factors such as the rental value of the property.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging impugned order dated 03.09.2022 passed by XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.5686/2022 on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, this appeal is filed.

2. Appellant herein was defendant no.1, while respondent no.1 herein was plaintiff and respondent no.2 herein was defendant no.2 in suit. They will be referred to as such herein.

3. O.S.no.5686/2022 was filed for judgment and decree against defendants restraining from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and lawful running of business by plaintiff therein and also restraining defendants from forcibly dispossessing plaintiff from suit schedule property other than under due process of law etc.

4. In said suit plaintiff filed IA no.1 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in respect of building by name 'Swamy Legato' constructed over land bearing new Sy.no.20./7, old Sy.no.20/4, Kadubisanahalli village, Marthahalli Outer Ring road, Bengaluru -insofar as 4th floor with super built up area of 7454 sq.ft., 5th floor with super built up area of 4064 sq. ft. and terrace open area of 3390 sq.ft. with four car park spaces in basement and 7 car par spaces on ground floor of said building (for short 'suit property').

5. Said application said application was opposed by defendant no.1. On consideration, trial Court passed impugned order allowing I.A.no.1 and restraining defendants from interfering with possession of plaintiff over suit property. Challenging same this appeal is filed.

6. Sri. Shravanth Arya Tandra, learned counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that impugned order passed was contrary to recognized principles of law governing injunction. It was submitted that relief sought for in suit was on basis of lease agreement, wherein suit property was permitted to be used for commercial purpose and therefore, jurisdiction of civil Court was barred. Elaborating said contention, it was submitted that defendant no.1 was owner of registered trade mark 'The Black Pearl and The Boozy Griffin Restaurant'. Under lease agreement dated 10.12.2015 appellant had taken on lease suit property from defendant no.2 for running said Bar and Restaurant for a period of 9 years.

7. It was stated that under sub-lease agreement dated 20.12.2021, defendant no.1 had agreed to lease out suit property to plaintiff for running Bar and Restaurant for a period of 10 years commencing from 21.12.2021. Under lease agreement, plaintiff had agreed to give 60% of it's stake in Bar and restaurant for consideration of Rs.4,80,00,000/- payable as non-refundable security deposit on or before 31.03.2022. It was also agreed that sub-lease would be subject to permission from defendant no.2 for continuation of sub-lease, which defendant no.1 was obliged to secure. Therefore, subject matter of suit was commercial dispute as defined in Section 2 (1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (referred to as 'CC Act' for brevity). Therefore, suit was required to be filed before Commercial Court established under Section 3 of CC Act with exclusive jurisdiction to try all suit and applications relating to commercial dispute of specified value. It was submitted that Section 12 provided for determination of specified value.

8. It was submitted that even Section 134 of Trade Marks Act (referred to as 'TM Act' for brevity) mandated filing of suit for infringement etc., before a District Court under TM Act.

9. Despite above provisions against entertaining commercial disputes suits, Civil Court in instant case had failed to verify it's jurisdiction and even justification, granted injunction.

10. It was submitted that plaintiff had in fact, filed two suits for same relief. Defendant no.1 had entered caveat, which was put up in O.S.no.5675/2022. On appearance of defendant no.1, said suit was dismissed as withdrawn as sought for by plaintiff without reserving liberty. Having bypassed caveat entered by defendant no.1,