ABHISHEK KAPOOR vs PKS INDIA LEGAL LLP AND ANR

In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandip Kumar De
FMAT 299 of 2026
with
CAN 1 of 2026
Abhishek Kapoor
Vs.
PKS India Legal LLP and Anr.
For the appellant : Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala,
Mr. Rohan Thakur,
Mr. Ramendu Agarwal,
Ms. Khushi Khaitan
For the respondents : Mr. Ayan Kumar Boral,
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee,
Mr. Gurjan Jain,
Ms. Sonia Khan
Heard on : 31.08.2026
Judgment on : 31.08.2026

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:
1. Since FMAT 298 of 2026 and FMAT 299 of 2026 involve similar
questions, both are taken up for hearing together. However,
separate judgments are being passed in respect of each of the
appeals.

2. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.
3. The present challenge has been preferred against an ad-interim
order of injunction passed in connection with a suit, inter alia for a
decree of declaration that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is a
monthly tenant in respect of the suit property and for permanent
injunction protecting the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit property.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
suit is palpably not maintainable before the ordinary civil court
which passed the impugned order, in view of the dispute involved in
the suit being a “commercial dispute” within the contemplation of
Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. Learned senior counsel places particular reliance on paragraphs 1
and 7 of the plaint, wherein it has been categorically pleaded that
the plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of a commercial office
space at the suit premises and that the tenancy pleaded is a
commercial tenancy.
6. It is argued that even without going into the merits of the matter,
since the averments made in the injunction application are disputed
on facts by the appellant, fact remains that if the dispute is held to
be a commercial dispute, the concerned court taking up such
matter will be determined by the “specified value” of the subject
property as stipulated in Section 12 of the 2015 Act and not by the
valuation of the suit.

7. It is submitted that the suit property is situated at Premises No. 11,
Dr. U. N. Brahmachari Street, under Police Station – Shakespeare
Sarani, Kolkata – 700017, which is a posh and prime location in the
heart of the city of Kolkata, and as such, the valuation of the suit
property will definitely be much above the specified value stipulated
for the City Civil Court at Calcutta, which starts from Rs.3 lakhs
and is vested exclusively in the City Civil Court up to Rs.10 lakhs.
From Rs.10 lakhs till Rs.1 crore, the City Civil Court and this Court
have concurrent jurisdiction. If the valuation exceeds Rs.1 crore,
the matter is to be filed before the Commercial Division of this
Court exclusively.
8. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from
palpable jurisdictional error.
9. We admit the appeal and take it up for hearing in view of the short
points involved.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in
the contention of the appellant since, as per the averments in the
plaint and the injunction application of the plaintiffs/respondent
no. 1 itself, the suit pertains to an alleged tenancy agreement in
respect of a commercial property and/or pertains to a commercial
tenancy. Thus, the provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(vii), which bring all
commercial disputes arising out of agreements relating to
immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce under
the umbrella of the 2015 Act, is squarely attracted.

11. From the Notification dated March 20, 2020 placed before us, we
also find that in case of commercial courts within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, of an amount not
less than Rs.3 lakhs and not more than Rs.10 lakhs, the City Civil
Court has exclusive jurisdiction, and regarding matters exceeding
Rs.10 lakhs but not exceeding Rs.1 crore, it has concurrent
jurisdiction with the Commercial Division of this Court, whereas in
case of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Calcutta, the
jurisdiction starts from Rs.10 lakhs upwards.
12. In such view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from lack of
subject matter/inherent jurisdiction of the trial court, which is an
ordinary civil court and not a commercial court, and accordingly is
vitiated on such count alone. In fact, the suit itself is also couched
as an ordinary civil suit and not as a commercial suit.
13. Hence, FMAT 299 of 2026 is allowed on contest against the
respondent no. 1 and ex parte against the proforma respondent no.
2, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated July 27, 2026
passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at
Calcutta in Title Suit no. 1569 of 2026.
14. It is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and
it will be open to the learned Trial Judge to decide the injunction
application pending before it independently and in accordance with
law.
15. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of as well.
16. No order as to costs.

17. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
I Agree.
(Sandip Kumar De, J.)