Summary
A company sought enforcement of an obligation to execute a mortgage deed before a Commercial Court. The Court held that the applicable statutory category required immovable property actually used exclusively in trade or commerce, rather than intended future use. The pleadings did not establish that condition, and return of the plaint to the competent ordinary court was upheld.
Issues
- Whether an agreement concerning property intended for future commercial use constituted a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii).
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(c)(vii), Commercial Courts Act, 2015The words requiring exclusive use in trade or commerce concerned actual use, excluding merely prospective or contemplated commercial use. (¶¶ Bopanna J: 6, Bopanna J: 11, Bopanna J: 12, Banumathi J: 9, Banumathi J: 22)
Held
- The statutory expression concerning property used exclusively in trade or commerce means actual use or being used, rather than readiness, likelihood or intention of future use. Both opinions agreed on this interpretation. (¶¶ Bopanna J: 11, Bopanna J: 12, Banumathi J: 1, Banumathi J: 22, Banumathi J: 26)
- The plaint must contain the basic averments bringing the dispute within commercial jurisdiction. Neither the relevant agreement nor the plaint indicated exclusive commercial use; territorial jurisdiction alone and the company’s objects did not supply that missing foundation. (¶¶ Bopanna J: 8, Bopanna J: 9, Bopanna J: 14, Banumathi J: 24)
- The Act’s purpose of speedy resolution requires confining the special procedure to disputes answering its definition. High value alone cannot justify entertaining an ordinary civil dispute in a Commercial Court; the ordinary civil remedy remains available. (¶¶ Bopanna J: 13, Banumathi J: 21, Banumathi J: 27)
Result
The appeal was dismissed without costs. The Commercial Court was directed to return the plaint, specifying a date for presentation before the court having jurisdiction.