$-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV + CS(COMM) 688/2021, I.A. 4179/2022, I.A. 41942/2024 and I.A. 41943/2024 MRS MEENA VOHRA R/O 19, DELAMERE GARDENS, MILL HILL, LONDON, NW7 3EA UNITED KINGDOM .....PLAINTIFF (Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. Sanad K. Jha and Mr. Vineet Nayar, Advocates.)

Versus MASTER HOSTS PVT LTD.

BUSINESS PREMISES AT;

G-69, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001 ALSO REGD. OFFICE, AT: 25, WATERLOO STREET, 1^st FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700069 ....DEFENDANT NO.1 SAMUEL FITZE & CO. PVT. LTD.

REGD. OFFICE:

26, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA - 700087 ....DEFENDANT NO.2 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed MR. DEEPAK KHULLAR (ALSO KNOWN AS BINU KHULLAR)

R/O 8, HO-CHI MINH SARANI, 4^th FLOOR, SUITE NO. - 20, KOLKATA ....DEFENDANT NO.3 (Through: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Ms. Rajshri A. Dubey and Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Advocates.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % Reserved on: 13.02.2025 Pronounced on: 18.03.2025 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

I.A. 4178/2022 (under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC)

1. The present application is filed by defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground inter alia of it being not maintainable as a commercial suit as per Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2015”). Since the decision on this fundamental ground will have a material bearing on the nature of the suit itself, therefore, the other grounds enumerated in the instant application are not considered at present.

2. Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.1 contends, that the averments made in the plaint would clearly signify that the present suit does not fall within the ambit of Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed “commercial dispute”. He further submits, without prejudice, that even if the case set up by the plaintiff is accepted as it is, at best, it would be an ordinary civil suit for recovery of a loan amount.

3. According to him, a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015 pertains to transactions typically involving merchants, financiers, and traders, often characterized by mercantile documents. He emphasises that the Bombay High Court, in Rolta (P) Ltd. v. Varanium Cloud Ltd.,, [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3518.] held that the nature of a dispute should be determined based on the substance of the case rather than procedural technicalities; and that commercial disputes must necessarily involve commercial transactions. In support of this contention, learned senior counsel relies on a decision of the High Court at Calcutta in the matter of Ladymoon Towers (P) Ltd. v. Mahendra Investment Advisors (P)

Ltd.²

4. Per contra, Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that the present application is wholly misconceived and has been filed solely to delay the trial. According to him, the application is legally untenable and devoid of merit, warranting outright dismissal. He submits that according to the plain definition of “commercial dispute” in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015, it encompasses even an ordinary transaction involving merchants, bankers, financiers, and traders described in sub-clauses (i) to (xxii). He further submits that, in the present case, the loan was advanced by the plaintiff’s deceased brother to defendant no. 1. He submits that the loan agreement dated Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed

19.12.1997 clearly contained a clause specifying an interest @ 12% p.a., effective from a particular date. Learned counsel also refers to the Board