Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Realistic Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karanpreet Singh Walia and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (13 Dec 2021)

Agreements relating to immovable properties, which are to be used exclusively in trade and commerce are covered within the ambit of 'commercial dispute'

MANU/DE/3481/2021

Commercial

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 impugns the order passed by District Judge, whereby the Commercial Court has held that, the suit filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company does not fall within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Petitioner/Plaintiff Company is into the business of providing real estate consultancy. An agreement dated 21st September, 2019 was entered into between the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company and the Respondent no. 1/Defendant no. 1 for the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company to provide consultancy and brokerage services in relation to the leasing of the property of the Respondents/Defendants to the prospective lessee being Domino's Pizza India Pvt. Ltd, as introduced by the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company. The scope of the services was to facilitate the leasing of the aforesaid premises for commercial purposes by arranging site inspections, organizing meetings and discussions with the prospective lessees. In respect of the aforesaid services, a fee was payable by the Respondent no. 1/Defendant no. 1 to the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company.

It is the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company that, the Respondents/Defendants did not pay the requisite fee in terms of the aforesaid agreement after the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company negotiated with Jubilant Foodworks Limited, who holds the master franchise of Domino's Pizza, for materializing a commercial lease transaction in respect of the said property of the Respondents/Defendants. Therefore, the suit from which the present petition arises was filed as a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 3,21,463 along with pendente lite and future interest.

All agreements relating to immovable properties, which are to be used exclusively in trade and commerce are covered within the ambit of 'commercial dispute' in terms of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act.

In the present case, the property in question of the Respondents/Defendants for leasing of which the agreement 21st September, 2019 was entered into between the parties, was a property to be leased for commercial use. Even otherwise, in terms of Section 2(1)(c)(x) of the Commercial Courts Act, all management and consultancy agreements would be covered within the ambit of commercial disputes. A bare reading of the agreement in question makes it clear that, the aforesaid agreement is in the nature of a consultancy agreement.

The agreement in question between the Petitioner/Plaintiff Company and the Respondent no. 1/Defendant no. 1 would be covered under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) as well as Section 2(1)(c)(x) of the Commercial Courts Act. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside. Petition allowed.

Tags : IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES   TRADE   COMMERCIAL DISPUTE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved