01Facts
The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit in 2016 (CS/85/2016) seeking a declaration of possessory rights, recovery of khas possession, and mesne profits
[para 4, 12]The claim arose after a lease deed for an immovable property used as office spaces expired by efflux of time, leading the plaintiff to categorize the defendants as trespassers
[para 5, 7]On December 5, 2022, a Single Judge sitting in the non-commercial division dismissed the plaintiff’s application for judgment on admission (GA/4/2021)
[para 1-2]The plaintiff appealed, contending that the dispute was commercial in nature and should have been treated as such
[para 8, 14]02Issues
i.1. Whether a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits involving immovable property used for commercial purposes (office spaces) constitutes a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
[para 8-9]ii.2. Whether the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Act applies to a suit instituted in 2016
[para 12]iii.3. Whether the order of the Single Judge is sustainable if passed in a non-commercial division for a commercial dispute
[para 14-15]03Law Applied
The Court applied Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which defines disputes arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce as "commercial disputes"
[para 8]It relied on the mandatory nature of Section 12A regarding pre-institution mediation as established in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. (2022)
[para 10]However, it applied the retrospective clarification from Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India (2025), which held that suits filed before August 20, 2022, without complying with Section 12A should be kept in abeyance for mediation rather than rejected
[para 12]The Court also invoked Section 15 of the Act, which mandates the transfer of pending commercial suits to the Commercial Division
[para 13]Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 2Section 15
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 7
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that because the subject property consisted of office spaces let out for commercial use, the suit fell within the scope of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act
[para 7-8]Citing its own recent precedents in Auto Fuel & Services and Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the Court affirmed that eviction suits based on expired commercial leases qualify as commercial disputes
[para 8-9]The Court noted that since the suit was instituted in 2016, it preceded the Supreme Court’s cut-off date in Patil Automation; thus, the suit remained valid but required procedural redirection rather than rejection
[para 12]The Division Bench found that the Single Judge failed to notice the commercial nature of the dispute and incorrectly adjudicated the matter in the non-commercial division, thereby vitiating the order
[para 14]05Holding
The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order dated December 5, 2022
[para 15]It directed the Department to transfer CS/85/2016 to the Commercial Division and assign it a new number pursuant to Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act
[para 13]The Court revived the application for judgment on admission, ordering it to be decided afresh by a Single Judge in the Commercial Division without being influenced by the set-aside order
[para 15]The appeal (APO/144/2023) was disposed of with no order as to costs
[para 16]Original Court PDF
AWAM MARKETING LLPvsM/S ORIENT BEVERAGES LIMITED AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
