Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC in a commercial suit. This court dismissed the challenge relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence that actual user determines the commercial nature of a dispute involving immovable property, finding no ground to interfere with the trial court's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~101
.....Petitioner
AJM HOUSING PVT. LTD
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav M. Liberhan, Ms. Komal Gupta, Mr. Rahul Dwivedvi and Mr. Arun Singh Rawat, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 9.10.2024 11:20:22
CM(M) 3574/2024 1
agitated that plaintiff, without pleading that the transaction from which the dispute subject matter of suit arises, relates to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, could not label it as a commercial dispute. It was observed therein that a property, prescribed user whereof as per the law i.e. the Master Plan and the municipal laws was residential, even if let out for use exclusively in trade or commerce or when, without being so let out, is used exclusively in trade or commerce, the same would still not qualify as an immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is also observed therein that Commercial Courts Act has brought only disputes arising out of transactions relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce within the ambit of a ‘commercial dispute’ and that the legislature could not have intended to bring disputes arising out of transactions relating to immovable property ‘illegally used’ in trade or commerce within the ambit of commercial disputes.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3574/2024 2
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 9.10.2024 11:20:22
and has observed and held that the words ‘ used exclusively in trade or commerce‟ need to be interpreted purposefully and the word ‘ used‟ denotes, ‘ actually used‟ and it cannot be either „ready for use‟ or „likely to be used‟ or „to be used‟ . Para 37 of said judgment reads as under:-
“37. A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. “the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce”. The words “used exclusively in trade or commerce” are to be interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes “actually used” and it cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be used” or “to be used”. It should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure discussed above.”
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2024/ss
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3574/2024 3
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 9.10.2024 11:20:22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the order dismissing his application for judicial review regarding the commercial nature of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Soni Dave vs. M/s. Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶13
2016 SCC OnLine Del 186 · Who else cites this
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLPApplied¶20
(2020) 15 SCC 585 · Who else cites this
Kanhia Lal Prakash Kumar
AJM Housing Pvt. Ltd
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
