Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JAGMOHAN BEHL – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDORE – Respondent
Certainly. Here are judgments that address the same legal point concerning the interpretation of what constitutes a "commercial dispute" related to agreements involving immoveable property used exclusively for trade or commerce, including claims for mesne profits:
Judgments have consistently held that disputes arising from agreements concerning immoveable property used solely for trade or commerce fall within the scope of commercial disputes. The broad language of the relevant statute, including terms such as "arising out of" and "in relation to," is interpreted expansively to encompass a variety of disputes, including recovery of rent, mesne profits, security realization, and other related reliefs, provided the property is used exclusively for business purposes (!) .
The legal interpretation emphasizes that the scope of "commercial dispute" should not be narrowly construed. Disputes involving breach of agreements, damages, and recovery actions related to immoveable property used in trade or commerce are aligned with the legislative intent to include all disputes arising out of or relating to such property used for commercial activities (!) .
Judgments clarify that the explanation within the statute serves to clarify and broaden the understanding of disputes that qualify as commercial. This includes disputes concerning agreements involving immoveable property used exclusively for trade or commerce, ensuring that claims for mesne profits, rent, security, and related reliefs are appropriately categorized as commercial disputes (!) .
The decisions reinforce that claims arising from agreements concerning immoveable property used solely for business purposes are to be treated as commercial disputes. Consequently, such disputes are to be tried within the framework of commercial courts as prescribed by law, facilitating a streamlined resolution process for disputes related to trade or commerce activities involving immoveable property (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or specific elaborations.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (OS) No.166/2016 Reserved on: 27thApril, 2017 % Date of Decision: 22nd September, 2017 JAGMOHAN BEHL ....Appellant Through Mr. D.K. Rustagi, Ms. Apoorv Rustagi and Ms. Medha Arya, Advocates.
Versus STATE BANK OF INDORE …Respondents Through Mr. S.N. Relan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This intra-Court appeal raises an interesting issue on interpretation of Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act, for short).
2. Facts in brief relevant for the present controversy may be noted. The appellant, Jagmohan Behl, has instituted CS (OS) No. 2008/2010 against the tenant, State Bank of Indore, who is respondent before us.For the sake of convenience, the appellant has been described as the “plaintiff” and the respondent has been described as the “defendant” in the present order and judgment.
3. The aforesaid suit pertains to recovery of mesne profits of Rs.1.08 crores for the period between 1st September, 2007 till 30th August, 2010 along with interest from the defendant in respect of prope
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
