Civil courts must return plaints involving disputes within a notified Commercial Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

The dispute arose from dealings in commodities between the petitioner and the respondent.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent had failed to deduct TDS of ₹35,45,813 from payments against invoices and that the petitioner later refunded this amount at the respondent’s request.

The respondent subsequently sued to recover ₹59,13,333.48, with interest, before the Civil Judge, Betul.

The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the dispute was commercial and fell within the jurisdiction of the notified Commercial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application, prompting this revision.

1. Whether the claim for recovery of an amount arising from the parties’ goods transaction constituted a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. Whether the suit, filed before a civil court after a Commercial Court had been designated for the area, could proceed there, and what procedural order was appropriate.

Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 defines “commercial dispute”; Section 6 gives the Commercial Court jurisdiction over suits and applications relating to commercial disputes of specified value within its territorial jurisdiction; and Section 21 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.

Section 15 addresses the transfer of qualifying suits pending when the Act applies, but the Court held it did not govern this suit because it was filed after the relevant notification.

Under CPC Order VII Rule 10, a plaint may be returned for presentation before the court having jurisdiction; Order VII Rule 11(d), by contrast, concerns rejection where the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law.

The Court relied on Dewas Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. on the use of Order VII Rule 10 where a suit was filed in the wrong court, and on Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. v. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for the primacy of the Commercial Courts Act in commercial-dispute jurisdiction.

It also referred to Karamveer Electronic Ltd. v. Energo Import and M/s TMT Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Canon Granites Pvt. Ltd. in addressing the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts and the distinction between returning and rejecting a plaint.

The Court found that the amount claimed related to tax deducted in the course of the parties’ commercial transaction.

It rejected the respondent’s argument that the tax amount was outside the amount payable for the goods, noting that a commercial invoice ordinarily includes tax unless the parties agree otherwise; no such contrary agreement had been shown.

Because the dispute was commercial and a Commercial Court had been notified for the Betul area, the civil court could not try the suit.

Although the petitioner had applied under Order VII Rule 11, the appropriate course was not to reject the plaint but to return it under Order VII Rule 10 for presentation before the competent Commercial Court. Section 15 did not provide for transfer because the suit had been filed after the notification.

It remanded the matter to the Civil Court with a direction to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC so that the respondent could present it before the appropriate Commercial Court under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.