Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant in a commercial suit, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com.O.S. No.277/2023, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for return of the plaint was rejected. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money based on an agreement dated 09.10.2020. The defendant contended that the suit was not a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the suit was maintainable. The High Court examined the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which includes disputes arising out of agreements relating to the sale of goods or services in the course of business. The court noted that the agreement in question was for the sale of shares, which does not fall within the ambit of 'goods' or 'services' as contemplated under the Act. The court further observed that the suit was essentially a money claim and not a commercial dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the application and that the plaint ought to be returned for presentation before the proper court. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, presumably because the impugned order was not interfered with, but the reasoning suggests the opposite. The judgment clarifies the scope of commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order VII Rule 10 CPC - Commercial Dispute - The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint on the ground that the suit was not a commercial dispute. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that the suit for recovery of money based on an agreement for sale of shares does not fall within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the agreement was not for the sale of goods or services in the course of business. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for recovery of money based on an agreement for sale of shares constitutes a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and whether the plaint should be returned for lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. However, the reasoning indicates that the suit was not a commercial dispute, but the petition was dismissed presumably because the impugned order was not interfered with. The judgment does not explicitly state the final order but the petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 2(1)(c) Commercial Courts Act 2015
- Commercial dispute definition
- Return of plaint
- Jurisdiction of Commercial Court
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (01) 47
WP No. 6985 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Reuben Jacob (Senior Counsel for Sourabh R K.), Annaiah C V
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
The defendant/petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 23.02.2024 rejecting his application for return of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not a commercial dispute.
Filing Reason
The defendant filed the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC contending that the suit for recovery of money based on an agreement for sale of shares was not a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and thus the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) rejected the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC by order dated 23.02.2024 in Com.O.S. No.277/2023.
Issues
Whether the suit for recovery of money based on an agreement for sale of shares is a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint?
Submissions/Arguments
The defendant argued that the suit was not a commercial dispute as the agreement for sale of shares does not fall within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore the plaint should be returned for presentation before the proper court.
The plaintiff contended that the suit was maintainable before the Commercial Court as the agreement was commercial in nature.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit for recovery of money based on an agreement for sale of shares does not constitute a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as shares are not 'goods' or 'services' in the course of business. The definition of commercial dispute under the Act is limited to agreements relating to the sale of goods or services in the course of business.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com.O.S. No.277/2023, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 10 is rejected.
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of the agreement dated 09.10.2020.
On the service of summons, defendant appeared through counsel and filed the written statement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Court since it is not a commercial dispute.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in Com.O.S. No.277/2023 before the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement and an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint. The trial court rejected the application on 23.02.2024. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 10
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 2(1)(c)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
