Point of Law : Commercial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute flowing out of ‘joint venture agreement’.

ORDER :

P Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Peri Prabhakar and learned counsel for respondent Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Briefly noted to the extent relevant to decide the controversy the plaint averments are as under:

4. According to plaintiff, defendant approached him by saying that he is intending to develop Acs.5.00 land belonging to Mrs Ghousia Begum situated in Survey No.129/103, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as a joint venture and requested plaintiff to invest. Plaintiff agreed to invest Rs.2 crores and offered to be a sleeping partner. He was assured that project would be completed in three years. Plaintiff was requested to take the responsibility to sell the property. On 2.4.2009 Joint Venture Agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendant. With fond hope of securing good returns, plaintiff invested Rs.2 crores. There was no progress in the joint venture in spite of several requests made. Disturbed by this attitude, plaintiff requested to refund his Rs.2 crores along with Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Plaintiff alleges that the defendant has diverted his money to another venture. Legal notice issued to pay the money due, were not responded. Plaintiff instituted O.S.No.432 of 2012 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. On establishing Commercial Court, it was transferred to Commercial Court, where renumbered as C.O.S No.135 of 2017. Plaintiff prayed to grant decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,08,00,000/- together with interest on principal amount and 18% IRR with effect from 9.4.2009 till the date of filing of suit and future interest @ 18 % IRR per annum.

5. In the said suit, defendant filed I. A.No.205 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to return the suit.

6. According to the defendant, the dispute raised in the suit is not a commercial dispute and therefore the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

7. On appreciating the respective submissions, the Court below held that the dispute raised in the suit is commercial dispute and therefore the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred.

8. While learned counsel for defendant vehemently contended that there was no land, what was agreed upon was at initial stage before starting a venture and land was not put to use and the transaction cannot be called as commercial dispute, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff has taken us through the terms of joint venture agreement document to buttress his point that the dispute involved is a commercial dispute and the defendant is perusing vexatious litigation only to drag on the litigation.

9. Both learned counsel have taken us through the relevant provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and relied on precedent decisions.

10. Following decisions are cited by learned counsel for defendant:

B.K.Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka and others, (2008) 4 SCC 451 ; Bunga Daniel Babu Vs Sri Vasudeva Constructions and others, (2016) 8 SCC 429; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd Vs K.S Infraspace LLP and others, (2020) 15 SCC 585; Faqir Chand Gulati Vs Uppal Agencies Private Limited and another, (208) 10 SCC 345; and Sandhya Hotels Pvt ltd and Others Vs Amritha Mishra, MANU/HY/0288/2018.

11. Following decision is cited by learned counsel for plaintiff:

Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited Vs. A.A. Avocations Pvt Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1266= (2022) 5 ALD 101.

12. To appreciate respective contentions, it is necessary to dwell into relevant provisions of the Act. They are Section 2(1)(c)(xi)[ S.2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) and (b) xxx (c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-xxxx

(ix) Joint Venture agreements; ] and Section 6[6. Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.—The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits a