A dispute must arise from ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers, and traders to qualify as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

ORDER :

(Abhay Ahuja, J.)

1. This Interim Application seeks return of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on the ground that the Summary Suit falls within the scope and ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the “said Act”) and has been incorrectly instituted as an Ordinary Summary Suit on the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, but ought to have been filed before the Commercial Division of this Court as a Commercial Summary Suit under the said Act.

2. Mr. Narvekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant- Defendant No.1 would submit that considering that the Plaintiff No.1 had advanced the loan in the course of its business to Rolta India Limited having acted as a financier and then has sought to assign it to the Defendant No.1 viz the Applicant, is only acting as a Financier/Trader which falls within the definition of commercial dispute in terms of Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the said Act and that therefore, the Plaint should be returned to the Court in which it should have been instituted viz. the Commercial Court Division of this Court as a Commercial Summary Suit as the dispute set out in the Plaint is a commercial dispute of a specified value viz. more than Rs. 3 lacs.

3. Mr. Narvekar has submitted that in view of the dictionary meanings of the words Ordinary, Financier, Trader and Mercantile as appearing in Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the said Act, the present dispute is a commercial dispute. That the said term had to be seen in their expansive sense and not in the narrow sense in view of the use of the words arising out of Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the said Act.

4. Mr. Narvekar would submit that the Plaintiff No. 1 has acted as a financier and financed monies to Rolta India Limited, which was to be assigned to the Defendant No.1 and for purely commercial purposes as admitted in paragraph 4.3 of the Plaint. That the present dispute is of a specified value has been admitted by the Plaintiffs.

5. Mr. Narvekar would submit that if it is shown from the Plaint that the dispute is a commercial dispute of specified value then the suit has to be mandatorily tried as such by the Commercial Division of the High Court as the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the commercial division. Mr. Narvekar has taken this Court through the preamble to the said Act as well as Sections 4, 7 and 15 of the said Act.

6. As noted above, Mr. Narvekar has relied upon the dictionary meanings of the words Ordinary, Transaction, Financer, Trader, Mercantile, Commerce in support of his submissions. In support of his contentions Mr. Narvekar has also relied upon the decisions in the following cases:-

i) State of Mysore Vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar, (1980) 1 SCC 66

ii) M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299

iii) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. K. S. Infraspace LLP & Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 585

7. Mr. Narvekar would therefore submit that the Plaint be therefore returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC to be filed before the Commercial Division of this Court.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Lohia, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs has opposed the said submissions. Mr. Lohia has submitted that the Application filed under Order VII Rule 10 is nothing but a dilatory tactic to prevent this Court from adjudicating the Suit.

9. Mr. Lohia would submit that this Interim Application is a delayed attempt to correct the false assumptions in Interim Applications (L) No. 3102 of 2024 which has been filed seeking dismissal of the Suit on account of the purported non-compliance with Section 12A of the said Act. 10. Mr. Lohia would submit that it is denied that the present Summary Suit falls within the ambit of the said Act as the said Act is only applicable to a Summary Suit with respect to a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the said Act. That the subject dispute in the present Summary Suit does not fall within a ambit of “Commercial Disputes” as defined under the sai