Development agreements for infrastructure projects constitute commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, regardless of property transfer components.

The appellants (landowners) entered into registered development agreements and powers of attorney in 2016 with the respondents (developers).

Alleging delays in construction, the appellants filed suits in 2020 before an ordinary Civil Court for cancellation of these agreements.

The suits remained defective regarding court fees until 2022, after which the defendants were served and subsequently filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The trial court allowed these applications, returning the plaints on the ground that the disputes were "commercial" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act).

The landowners appealed, contending the agreements involved transfers of title in praesenti and were not merely construction contracts.

Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the CC Act, which defines "commercial dispute" as those arising from construction and infrastructure contracts.

Section 21 of the CC Act, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws, including the Court Fees Act.

Section 12(1)(c) of the CC Act was applied to determine "specified value" based on the market value of the immovable property.

Precedent in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [(2022) 10 SCC 1] and Aase Ram v. Amit Kumar regarding the mandatory nature of the CC Act and the procedure for return of plaints.

The court reasoned that the expression "arising out of" in Section 2(1)(c) lends an expansive meaning to "commercial dispute".

It held that a contract does not lose its character as a construction/infrastructure contract simply because it contains additional elements like the transfer of ownership rights.

Regarding valuation, the court rejected the "harmonious construction" with the Court Fees Act proposed in Mrs. Soni Dave [2016 SCC OnLine Del 4282], ruling that Section 21's overriding effect makes the market value of the property the sole determinant of "specified value" under Section 12(1)(c).

Finally, the court determined that since the suits were filed in 2020 (post-2015 enactment), Section 15 of the CC Act (transfer of pending suits) did not apply; because the ordinary civil court lacked inherent subject-matter jurisdiction, the only legal recourse was the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.

The "specified value" is the market value of the property, which in these cases exceeded the ₹30 Lakh threshold.

Suits filed in the wrong forum after the CC Act's enactment cannot be transferred but must be returned for fresh presentation.

The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the trial court's orders returning the plaints.