SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 15039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
The Canara Bank, Dharapuram Branch, Rep.by its Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
R.Nirmalkumar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP No. 13759 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Manoharan

The distinction between types of loans determines jurisdiction for commercial disputes under relevant statutes.

Headnote:The court analyzed the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner, a bank, contended that the agricultural loan extended was improperly categorized as a commercial dispute leading to the dismissal of their suit. The court found that the trial court did not consider the distinguishing features pertinent to the current case and consequently set aside its earlier order. The revisiting of the suit was ordered, allowing the bank's petition.

Table of Content
1. nature of loan impacts jurisdiction in suit classification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. order to entertain suit filing based on prior court directive. (Para 5)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

2. The Revision petitioner/Bank had advanced an agricultural loan to the respondent. The suit filed by the Bank for recovery of the amount due from the respondent/defendant has been repeatedly returned by the Court below on the ground that the dispute constitutes a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the loan in question is purely an agricultural loan and, therefore, the suit is maintainable before the ordinary Civil Court and there is no necessity to approach the Commercial Court. However, despite such representation, the learned Trial Judge once again returned the plaint placing reliance upon the order passed by this Court in CRP No. 1113 of 2024.

4.The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the order passed in the said Revision and submitted that, in that case, the loan was availed for educational and housing purposes and, in those circumstances, this Court held that the suit would fall within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. Unfortunately, without adverting to the distinguishing features of the present case, the learned Trial Judge has declined to entertain the suit filed by the Bank.

5.In the light of the above, the docket order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Court, Tiruppur, is set aside. The Registry is directed to return the original plaint, if produced before this Court, within a period of one week from the date of uploading of a copy of this order, after obtaining due acknowledgement from the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, to enable the petitioner to re-present the same before the Court below. The petitioner shall re-present the papers within a period of two weeks thereafter. On such re-presentation, the learned Principal District Court, Tiruppur, shall entertain and number the suit, if it is otherwise in order, in accordance with law.

6.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top