$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 07.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.01.2026 + RFA(COMM) 348/2024 PRAMOD KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Rai, Adv.

versus M/S GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi and Mr.

Kartikeya Misra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Appeal, preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as „CC Act‟], challenges the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the Commercial Court dismissed the Appellant‟s suit for recovery, holding that the dispute did not qualify as a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the CC Act.

2. The Appellant is before this Court on a limited legal grievance i.e., that even if the Commercial Court correctly identified the dispute as non-commercial, it erred in law by dismissing the suit instead of returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟] for presentation before the appropriate non-commercial forum.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The Appellant was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the Respondent-company vide an appointment letter dated 31.08.1992. After successfully completing a one-year probation period, his services were confirmed. Over a long and dedicated tenure spanning more than 27 years, the Appellant rose through the ranks to the position of Deputy General Manager (Civil).

4. On 03.02.2020, the Appellant applied for earned leave for the period of 04.02.2020 to 04.03.2020 to attend his elder son‟s wedding. However, on 06.02.2020, the Respondent-company summarily terminated the Appellant‟s employment, purportedly invoking Provision 14(a) of a revised terms and conditions of the letter dated

20.12.2012.

5. Following this termination, the Appellant sought a full and final settlement of his dues and claimed a total outstanding sum of Rs.4,10,184/-, which included:

i. Rs.1,00,000/- towards the balance of two months‟ basic salary in lieu of notice (the Respondent-company having paid only one month);

ii. Rs.2,55,000/- for the encashment of 153 days of earned leave;

iii. Rs.5,184/- for pending Travel Expense bills; and iv. Rs.50,000/- towards the refund of a laptop security deposit.

6. The Respondent failed to settle the dues despite legal notices dated 09.07.2020 and 09.12.2022. Consequently, the Appellant instituted a recovery suit before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court, however, took the view that since the dispute was essentially a service-related recovery matter between an employee and a private employer, it did not satisfy the criteria of a "commercial dispute" as defined under the CC Act. On this basis, the Commercial Court dismissed the suit of the Appellant.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the dismissal of the suit has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel argues that the Commercial Court‟s power, upon finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the CC Act, was restricted to the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.

7.1 Learned counsel further submits that by dismissing the suit, the Commercial Court has effectively shut the doors of justice on the Appellant‟s substantive claims for his terminal benefits, whereas the defect was merely one of the “wrong forum”. Learned counsel seeks a de novo trial before the appropriate Court.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent, while defending the Impugned Judgment, submits that the Appellant‟s termination was in accordance with the revised company policy of 2012 and that all legitimate dues had been settled.

8.1 Learned counsel further submits that since the Appellant chose to approach a specialized Commercial Court for a non-commercial matt