A hand loan transaction without any business purpose between the parties does not constitute a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The defendant had also filed an application being G.A 3 of 2023 praying for dismissal of the suit or for return of the suit as the suit filed by the plaintiff is commercial in nature covered under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. The defendant contended that as per the averments made in the plaint, the alleged transaction is commercial in nature and thus the suit is not maintainable before this Court. He submits that the plaintiff to avoid filing of the statement of truth on affidavit has filed the suit before this Court as the plaintiff had the knowledge that he has made a false averment in the suit.

3. Learned Counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of an Anumati Consultancy and Services Pvt. Ltd. –vs- Wellside Global Private Limited and submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is required to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the appropriate Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online Cal 4240 (Ladymoon Towers Private Limited -vs-Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited) and submitted that the placement of the underlined words between ordinary transactions of the named persons and the mercantile documents indicates that all transactions between the specified classes of persons will not result in a “commercial dispute” where the transaction does not relate to mercantile document. Hence, only a dispute arising out of the transaction between the named classes of persons which has been formalised by way of mercantile document will be a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant had obtained simple loan from the plaintiff with an agreement that he will repay the loan with interest and not for any business transaction between the parties.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties.

7. The specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff lent an advance of Rs.10,00,000/-to the defendant with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. On receipt of the amount, the defendant had issued a hand written receipt confirming the amount for 120 days with an interest at the rate of 15% per annum. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was for the purpose of any business transaction. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is simply stated that the defendant obtain financial accommodation/loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-subject to condition that the defendant will return the said amount within 120 days with interest @ 15% per annum.

8. In the Ladymoon Case (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that:

19. The above discussion as to what would constitute a "commercial dispute" under the options contemplated in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act is important since courts generally tend to accept the listing of matters before the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of a High Court, as correct. The categorizations of matters before these Benches are usually done by the concerned Department or by the occasional assessment by the concerned Court where a party takes objection to such classification. The two indices which form the basis of the decision as to the classification of a matter are (a) whether the dispute is a "commercial dispute"; and if held to be in the affirmative (b) whether the Specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute. Since the 2015 Act prescribes a different procedural regime for adjudication of commercial matters in line with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, it is only desirable that a court undertakes an enquiry in fit cases as to whether the matter should be listed before the Commercial Division before going into the merits of the case.

20. The definition section of the 2015 Act only