Suits misclassified as commercial must be treated under ordinary civil jurisdiction; designation does not create a distinct court.

ORDER :

Abhay Ahuja, J.

1. The suits in respect whereof these applications have been filed have been filed as Commercial Summary Suits by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking recovery of Rs.17,34,26,187/- (Rupees Seventeen Crores Thirty-Four Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand One Hundred and Thirty-Seven only) alongwith interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the Applicants and Mr. Praful Satra (Original Defendant No.2) in one suit and recovery of Rs.15,57,32,851/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Fifty Seven Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty One only) along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the Applicant/Defendant therein in another suit.

2. Appearance was entered into on behalf of the Defendants and thereafter, Summons for Judgment had been taken out in both the suits.

3. After the pleadings in the Summons for Judgment were completed, on 21^st February 2023, the aforementioned two Interim Applications have been taken out seeking return of the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) on the ground that the suits are not commercial suits under the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 (the “Act”) and the plaints are to be returned to the Plaintiff to be presented to the appropriate court in which the suits should have been instituted.

4. The Interim Applications had been heard on 5^th May 2025 and 16^th June 2025. On 23^rd June 2025, the matter was adjourned to 16^th July 2025 for the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant to rejoind. On 16^th July 2025, the learned Counsel for the Respondent sought to sur-rejoind, which was heard on 28^th July 2025. On 11^th August 2025, the arguments in the matter were concluded and the Interim Applications were reserved for orders.

5. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Applicants has submitted that the two suits do not pertain to commercial disputes but are filed before the commercial division for early disposal which would just clog the system and block the path for genuine commercial disputes and hence, it is crucial for the commercial Court to exclude those cases that are not commercial in nature. In support, Mr. Andhyarujina has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585

6. Mr. Andhyarujina has also drawn this Court’s attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Ltd., Order dated 12th April 2022 passed in Interim Application (L) No.10192 of 2022 in Commercial Suit No.43 of 2022 submitting that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the dispute is not a commercial dispute, the suit is required to be tried by the competent Court in accordance with provision contained in the CPC and only if the suit concerns a commercial dispute, a special procedure as envisaged by the CPC as amended by the Act is required to be peremptorily followed. It is submitted that the two suits do not meet the necessary conditions for the subject matter of the suits to fall under the ambit of a “commercial dispute”. Mr. Andhyarujina has also relied upon the following decisions in support of the contention that the plaints in the two suits be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC:

(i) Chorus Call INC v. Gurmeetpal Singh Bindra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2352

(ii) Bharat Hudanna Shetty v. Ahuja Properties & Developers and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13984

(iii) Varanium Cloud. Ltd, in the mat