The case presents commercial transaction complexities, making it applicable under the Commercial Courts Act, necessitating transfer to a Commercial Court.

(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.)

The suit is for recovery of money arising out of an agreement laid against two defendants.

2. The 1st defendant is the importer of the merchandise through the

2nd defendant acting as the shipping agent. The plaintiff, as the stevedoring agent, provided the yard for storing the merchandise imported. Due to certain litigation between M/s.Dalhousie Investment Trust Company and the 1st defendant herein, the materials stored in the yard of the plaintiff not cleared and it appears being a bailor, the plaintiff, after obtaining permission of the Court had sold the stock to recover the dues payable by the bailee, for realization of the balance amount, the suit has been filed.

3. Initially, the suit was filed before the Hon'ble High Court in C.S.No.852 of 2000 but it was later transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai, on the ground of jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No.3744 of 2012. 4. When the matter is pending trial, in view of Commercial Courts Act , 2015 as well as some of the judgments of the higher Courts, the plaintiff is prompted to file a memo before the trial Court stating that the dispute being in the nature of Commercial dispute, same has to be transferred to the notified Commercial Court at Chennai.

5. The Learned Trial Judge, after considering the memo seeking transfer of the suit to the jurisdiction Commercial Court, has passed the following order:

“Both counsel present. Parties are not present. The Learned Counsel for plaintiff filed a memo and submits that the nature of the case falls under Commercial dispute. Therefore it has to be transferred to the Commercial Court for disposed according to Commercial Court Act. The plaint averments carefully perused. From the averments, it does not disclose any Commercial transaction. It is after all a suit for recovery of money in other words. The plaintiff claiming arrears of rent to be collected from the defendants. In facts the prayer is recovery of money towards the rent payable by the defendant. The Learned Counsel for plaintiff is required to clarify clearly whether the present suit fall under the Commercial nature much less. The relief is sought to recover the rent for the premises which has been shown in the plaint schedule mentioned property. Call on 05.12.2024.”

6. The trial Court has held that the suit is not commercial in nature and the relief sought is for recovery of rent for the premises which has been shown in the plaint schedule and accordingly posted the matter for trial on

05.12.2024.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant has filed the present transfer application to determine whether the dispute falls within the definition of “Commercial dispute” as defined under Section 2 (1)(c)

of Commercial Courts Act , 2015.

8. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is a bailee for the merchandise initially imported by M/s.Dalhousie Investment Trust Company for the 1st defendant Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Limited. As a service provider, the plaintiff acting as stevedoring agent, stored the material in its yard. In view of the dispute between the importer and the purchaser, i.e., the 1st defendant, the stock stored in the yard not cleared by the parties. Therefore, the suit is for recovery of the rent. It is incorrect on the part of the trial Court to hold that it is a simpliciter landlord-

tenant dispute and the suit is merely for recovery of rental arrears.

9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the merchandise stored in the premises of the plaintiff could not be cle