Amit Bansal JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
CM No. 44758/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1146/2021 & CM No. 44757/2021(for stay)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 10th September, 2021 passed by District Judge, Commercial Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM.) No. 288/2021, whereby the Commercial Court has held that the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff Company does not fall within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff Company is into the business of providing real estate consultancy. An agreement dated 21st September, 2019 was entered into between the petitioner/plaintiff Company and the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 for the petitioner/plaintiff Company to provide consultancy and brokerage services in relation to the leasing of the property of the respondents/defendants being Ground Floor, Plot No. 30/3 & 30/3A, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 to the prospective lessee being Domino's Pizza India Pvt. Ltd, as introduced by the petitioner/plaintiff Company. The scope of the services was to facilitate the leasing of the aforesaid premises for commercial purposes by arranging site inspections, organizing meetings and discussions with the prospective lessees. In respect of the aforesaid services, a fee was payable by the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 to the petitioner/plaintiff Company.
5. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff Company that the respondents/defendants did not pay the requisite fee in terms of the aforesaid agreement after the petitioner/plaintiff Company negotiated with Jubilant Foodworks Limited, who holds the master franchise of Domino's Pizza, for materializing a commercial lease transaction in respect of the said property of the respondents/defendants. Therefore, the suit from which the present petition arises was filed as a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 3,21,463/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
6. Vide the impugned order dated 10th September, 2021, the aforesaid suit was not taken to be the subject matter of a 'commercial dispute' by observing/reasoning that, (i) the agreement dated 21st September, 2019 between the parties, which is titled as 'Confirmation of fee payable for Consultancy/Brokerage Service', could not be termed as an agreement relating to immovable property and therefore, the dispute between the parties would not fall under the ambit of a 'commercial dispute'; and, (ii) the agreement is regarding the broker's fee and therefore, the suit cannot be termed as a 'commercial dispute'.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and Section 2(1)(c)(x) of the Commercial Courts Act to contend that the aforesaid agreement between the parties clearly falls within the ambit of a 'commercial dispute' and therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff Company was entitled to file a suit before the Commercial Court.
8. The relevant provisions of the Commercial Courts Act are set out below:
"2. Definitions.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxxx xxxxx xxxx
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of -
xxxx xxxxx xxxx
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Explanation. - A commercial dispute shall n........