MEENA VOHRA Vs. MASTER HOSTS PVT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed by defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground inter alia of it being not maintainable as a commercial suit as per Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2015'). Since the decision on this fundamental ground will have a material bearing on the nature of the suit itself, therefore, the other grounds enumerated in the instant application are not considered at present.

(2.) Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.1 contends, that the averments made in the plaint would clearly signify that the present suit does not fall within the ambit of 'commercial dispute'. He further submits, without prejudice, that even if the case set up by the plaintiff is accepted as it is, at best, it would be an ordinary civil suit for recovery of a loan amount.

(3.) According to him, a 'commercial dispute' under Sec. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 2015 pertains to transactions typically involving merchants, financiers, and traders, often characterized by mercantile documents. He emphasises that the Bombay High Court, in Rolta (P) Ltd. v. Varanium Cloud Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3518 held that the nature of a dispute should be determined based on the substance of the case rather than procedural technicalities; and that commercial disputes must necessarily involve commercial transactions. In support of this contention, learned senior counsel relies on a decision of the High Court at Calcutta in the matter of Ladymoon Towers (P) Ltd. v. Mahendra Investment Advisors (P) Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4240.