Aloke Satnaliwala Vs Nirmala Devi Fatehpuria and Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: Calcutta High Court held that a suit arising from a Memorandum of Understanding concerning development of immovable property involved a “commercial dispute” within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Division Bench was considering an appeal against an order refusing ad interim relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case arose from financial assistance of Rs.2 crores allegedly advanced in connection with development of immovable property under an MoU executed after negotiations in October 2020. According to the plaint, Rs.50 lakhs was subsequently repaid and a balance confirmation was executed in January 2026, following which the suit was instituted for recovery of the outstanding amount with interest.
The Court observed that every dispute of a commercial nature does not necessarily constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act. However, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) expressly covers agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. On the facts, the MoU contemplated development of immovable property. The Court held that a development agreement, by its very nature, encompasses commercial exploitation of immovable property and therefore the suit involved a commercial dispute within the statutory definition.
Having reached that conclusion, the Division Bench considered whether the plaint should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rather than the suit being transferred under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act. Referring to Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. v. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and Rule 9(2) of the High Court at Calcutta Commercial Courts Practice Directions, 2021, the Court noted that where a suit involving a commercial dispute of the specified value is filed in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction after the relevant notification, Order VII Rule 10 permits return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate forum. The Court also noted that Laxmi Polyfab had been considered in Patil Automation Private Limited Vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited by the Supreme Court.
