Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Mrs. Soni Dave & Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. - Defendant
CS(OS) No. 2330 & 2331 of 2008, IA No. 19934 & 19927 of 2015 (of the plaintiff for direction) & CCP (O) No. 30 & 29 of 2016
Decided On : 19-07-2016
Commercial Dispute - Ejectment of Defendant - The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12, Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The suits were for ejectment of the defendant from different parts of the property. A decree of ejectment had been passed, and the issue of mesne profits remained for adjudication. The plaintiff argued that the suit should remain in the High Court due to its commercial nature, but the court disagreed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suits did not qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, as the property was not used exclusively in trade or commerce. The court also held that the specified value of the suits did not exceed Rs.1 crore, and the suits were liable to be transferred to the District Judge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suits qualified as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act and whether they should remain in the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing that the specified value of the suits had to be determined in accordance with the Act. The court also considered the overriding effect of the Act and its harmonious interpretation with the Court Fees Act and the Suits Valuation Act.
Final Decision: The court transferred the suits to the District Judge (South-East), Saket Courts, within whose jurisdiction the property was situated.
IA No.5243/2016 (for exemption) in CS(OS) No.2330/2008 & IA No.5238/2016 (for exemption) in CS(OS) No.2331/2008.
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CS(OS) No.2330/2008, IA No.19934/2015 (of the plaintiff for direction) & CCP (O) No.30/2016). CS(OS) No.2331/2008, IA No.19927/2015 (of the plaintiff for direction) & CCP (O) No.29/2016).
3. Both the suits are for ejectment of the defendant from different parts of the property no.M-1, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
4. A decree, on admissions, of ejectement has already been passed and in appeals preferred thereagainst, time up to 31st July, 2016 has been given to the defendant to vacate the property. The issue of mesne profits remains for adjudication.
5. Both suits, as per the plaint therein, for the purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction have a value of less than the enhanced minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The suits, in accordance with the Office Order dated 24th November, 2015 of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, issued in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, are liable to be transferred to the concerned District Judge.
6. The counsel for the plaintiff however argues that as far as CS(OS) No.2331/2008 is concerned, though the valuation thereof as per the plaint is less than the enhanced minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, is a commercial suit within the meaning of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act) and since the specified value, i.e. the market value of the property qua which the relief of ejectment was claimed therein was/is in excess of Rs.1 crore, the same has to remain in this Court and is not liable to be transferred. Attention in this regard is invited to Section 12(c) of the Commercial Courts Act prescribing the mode of determination of Specified Value and to Section 21 thereof giving the provisions of the said Act an overriding effect.
7. The contention of the counsel for the plaintiff, though an innovative one, does not find favour with me for the reasons following.
8. Per Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, all suits and applications relating to “commercial disputes” of a “specified value” filed in a High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction are to be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of that High Court.
9. A “commercial dispute” is defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act as a dispute arising out of transactions/relationships as described in Clauses (i) to (xxii) thereunder. The only clause on which the plaintiff can perhaps rely and to which the counsel for the plaintiff draws attention is Clause (vii) which is as under:
“(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;”
The explanation to Section 2(1)(c) is as under:
“Explanation. – A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because –
(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immovable 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;”
10. The term “specified value” is defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act as under:
“(i) “specified value”, in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 which shall not be less than one crore rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.”
11. Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, as contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, provides for determination of specified value. The same is as under:
“12. Determination of Specified Value. –
(1) The Specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shall be determi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
