Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. VS K. S. Infraspace LLP...

Checking relevance for P. K. Vijayan VS Kamalakshi Amma...

Checking relevance for Calcutta Municipal Corporation VS Motilal Naresh Kumar...

Checking relevance for Tata Iron And Steel Co. LTD. VS State Of W. B. ...

Checking relevance for Indian Bank (Formerly Known As Allahabad Bank) VS Rameshchandra M Thakkar...

Indian Bank (Formerly Known As Allahabad Bank) VS Rameshchandra M Thakkar - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 543 : An injunction suit for leased commercial property is maintainable in a Commercial Court if the dispute arises from an agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The court held that the property in question was used as a warehouse, which constitutes exclusive use for trade or commerce, thereby falling within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Supreme Court''''s precedent in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited established that the property must be ''''actually used'''' for trade or commerce, not merely ''''ready for use'''' or ''''likely to be used''''. Since the property was actively used as a warehouse both at the time of the suit''''s institution and thereafter, the dispute qualifies as a commercial dispute, making the suit maintainable in a Commercial Court.Checking relevance for Raj Karan vs Sudesh Bhatia...

Raj Karan vs Sudesh Bhatia - Delhi (2022) : A lease dispute regarding immovable property used for commercial purposes qualifies as a ''''commercial dispute'''' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore the suit is maintainable in a Commercial Court. The court held that since the lease deed specifically provided for exclusive use of the premises for trade and commerce (Clause 11.1), and two of the prayers in the suit were based on the lease deed relating to commercial property, the suit was maintainable as a commercial suit under the Act. This establishes that an injunction suit for leased commercial property is only maintainable in a Commercial Court when the property is used exclusively for trade or commerce and the dispute arises from a commercial lease agreement.Checking relevance for Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited VS A. A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd. ...

Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited VS A. A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 300 : The court held that a dispute arising out of a lease agreement for immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, where the specified value exceeds one crore, constitutes a ''''commercial dispute'''' under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As such, applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—such as those seeking injunctions in relation to leased commercial property—must be filed only in a designated Commercial Court, and not in a regular Civil Court. The court emphasized that the subject land was already ''''put to use'''' for commercial purposes, and the arrears of rent exceeded two crores, satisfying the ''''specified value'''' threshold. Therefore, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.Checking relevance for Bangalore Blues Entertainment India Private Limited VS One Ikigaii Edutech Private Limited...

Bangalore Blues Entertainment India Private Limited VS One Ikigaii Edutech Private Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 432 : A suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the possession of immovable property used for commercial purposes is not automatically maintainable only in a Commercial Court. For a dispute to be considered a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, it must meet two conditions: (1) it must fall within the definition of a commercial dispute, and (2) it must have a specified value exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs. Until the specified value of the suit is determined, the suit cannot be held not maintainable based on the rental value of the property. The court directed the trial court to determine the specified value and its jurisdiction, and stated that if the suit is ultimately found not maintainable, the interim injunction would stand vacated with liberty for the plaintiff to seek relief before a Commercial Court. Therefore, the maintainability of an injunction suit for leased commercial property depends on the specified value, not automatic jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.Checking relevance for Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited VS A. A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd. ...

Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited VS A. A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 267 : The court held that a dispute arising out of an agreement concerning immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, where the specified value exceeds one crore, constitutes a ''''commercial dispute'''' under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In such cases, applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—such as those seeking interim injunctions—must be filed only in a designated Commercial Court. The court set aside the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court, ruling that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was a commercial dispute of specified value exceeding one crore, and thus the remedy was only maintainable before a Commercial Court.

• Maintainability of Suit Based on Property Type - Multiple judgments (e.g., Navuluri Srinivasa Reddy Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - Andhra Pradesh, Donthu Anjaneyulu Vs Sri. Yogananda Ashramam, - Andhra Pradesh, ATCHUTA VENKATA MURTHAIAH Vs SRI YOGANANDA ASHRAMAM - Andhra Pradesh, Kota Venkateswarlu, Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - Andhra Pradesh, Lam Krishna Rao Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 28611, Gudipati Satyannarayana Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30045, Gurram gurulakshmana Vs SRI YOGANANDA ASHRAMAM - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22506, IND_Delhi_CM(M)-568_2022, Sanisetty Venkata Kasi Viswanadham vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 537, Sanisetty Venkata Kasi Viswanadham Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30044) establish that when a property leased is solely a vacant site, civil suits for recovery or possession are only maintainable in Commercial Courts or specialized commercial courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The courts have consistently held that civil courts lack jurisdiction in such cases if the property is only vacant land, especially when the lease is for commercial purposes various references.

• Material Evidence and Lease Deeds - The courts rely heavily on registered lease deeds (Ex.A-1) and other documentary evidence like PLCs (Property Location Certificates) to ascertain whether the leased property includes structures like sheds or is merely vacant land. When lease deeds describe the leased property as a shed or structure, jurisdiction might differ; however, when the property is confirmed as vacant land, the suit's jurisdiction is confined to commercial courts Navuluri Srinivasa Reddy Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - Andhra Pradesh, ATCHUTA VENKATA MURTHAIAH Vs SRI YOGANANDA ASHRAMAM - Andhra Pradesh, Kota Venkateswarlu, Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - Andhra Pradesh.

• Suppression of Material Facts and Jurisdictional Issues - Courts have observed that plaintiffs sometimes suppress facts or misrepresent the nature of the leased property to approach civil courts. Such suppression leads to the suit being declared non-maintainable in civil courts, emphasizing the importance of truthful disclosure and proper jurisdictional approach Navuluri Srinivasa Reddy Vs Sri Yogananda Ashramam - Andhra Pradesh, Donthu Anjaneyulu Vs Sri. Yogananda Ashramam, - Andhra Pradesh.

• Commercial Dispute and Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act - When the lease pertains to a property used for commercial purposes, especially under lease agreements explicitly for commercial use, the dispute is deemed a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Such cases are expressly maintainable only in commercial courts, as seen in IND_Delhi_CM(M)-568_2022.

• Impact of Property Use and Purpose - The courts distinguish between leases for structures (like sheds or shops) and vacant land. When the leased property is only vacant land, the jurisdiction is exclusive to commercial courts, and civil courts have no authority to entertain such suits various references.

Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent judicial stance across multiple rulings confirms that injunction suits or suits for recovery of possession involving leased commercial property are only maintainable in Commercial Courts when the property is leased for commercial purposes and is a vacant site. Civil courts lack jurisdiction in such cases, especially when the lease is for a vacant land intended for commercial use, as established by the courts' reliance on lease deeds, PLCs, and the nature of the property. Proper classification of the property and adherence to jurisdictional mandates under the Commercial Courts Act are crucial for the maintainability of such suits.