Personal-purpose venue bookings do not constitute commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act.

The petitioner filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of ₹5,26,000, including a ₹3,00,000 advance paid to book a marriage venue for his daughter’s wedding, which was cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Commercial Court framed issues on limitation, misjoinder, cause of action, and entitlement to recovery, but not on whether the dispute qualified as a commercial dispute.

After part-final arguments, the Commercial Court expressed the prima facie view that the petitioner had booked the venue as a consumer and that the dispute was not commercial.

The petitioner challenged orders dated 23 April, 13 July and 10 August 2026, arguing, among other things, that the maintainability issue had not previously been framed and that the suit fell within Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

1. Whether the personal booking of a marriage venue constituted a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. Whether the suit, having been found non-commercial at the final-arguments stage, should be transferred to a competent Civil Court rather than returned to an earlier stage before the Commercial Court.

Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 covers disputes arising from agreements for the provision of services only where the agreement or transaction contains an element of commerce, trade or business.

Whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose depends on its facts, including whether the service has a close and direct nexus with profit generation and whether its dominant purpose is commercial or personal.

Under Section 24(1)(b)(ii), read with Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court may transfer a suit to a competent court, including where the transferring court lacks jurisdiction to try it.

The Court also referred to Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 143, concerning transfer of proceedings to a court of competent jurisdiction.

The petitioner booked the venue for his daughter’s wedding, a personal purpose unconnected with any profit-generating activity or business-to-business transaction. Although the venue provider was a commercial entity, that fact did not make the petitioner’s personal booking a commercial transaction; accordingly, the dispute did not fall within Section 2(1)(c)(xviii).

Given that the suit had reached the final-arguments stage, the Court considered it unnecessary and contrary to the interests of justice to return the matter to the beginning. It instead relied on its transfer powers under Section 24 CPC to have the suit heard by a competent Civil Court from its present stage.

The matter was listed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, to designate the receiving court, which was to proceed from the stage at which the suit stood; the petition was disposed of accordingly.