Authority: Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division (Original Side)

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal No. APOT 70 of 2022 (IA No: GA 1 of 2022) filed by LMJ International Limited (appellant, also defendant No. 2) against Concast Steel & Power Limited and others (respondents).
  • Judges: Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak and Hon'ble Justice Aryak Dutt.
  • Hearing concluded on 3 September 2026; judgment delivered on 16 September 2026.
  • The appellant sought dismissal of the suit (IA GA 7 of 2021) on the ground of abatement; the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint and substitution of the plaintiff with the liquidator appointed in respect of the plaintiff (IA GA 8 of 2022).
  • The Single Judge had allowed the amendment and dismissed the abatement application.
  • Plaintiff’s counsel argued the dispute is a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, citing high‑sea sales of metallurgical coke, a tripartite agreement dated 23 March 2012, and the need for interpretation of mercantile documents.
  • Defendant No. 1’s counsel contended the suit does not involve a commercial dispute, emphasizing title‑to‑goods, alleged fraud, lack of privity of contract, and that the ancillary damages claim cannot confer commercial character. Numerous precedents were cited (e.g., Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Teliz Realtors, Glasswood Realty, Bharat Huddanna Shetty, Meena Vohra, etc.).
  • Defendant No. 2’s counsel similarly argued the suit is non‑commercial, noting the plaintiff’s liquidation, the liquidator’s awareness of the suit, and reliance on CPC Order XXII Rule 8 and case law.
  • Two issues were framed: (i) whether the suit falls within the meaning of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 2015; (ii) whether the Single Judge correctly allowed amendment/substitution and rejected abatement.
  • Background facts: the suit was filed in 2013 (CS 77 of 2013). The plaintiff entered insolvency proceedings; IBBI applied for an IRP on 7 Nov 2017, a liquidator was appointed on 4 Jan 2018, and NCLT ordered liquidation on 26 Sept 2018 (publication 29 Sept 2018). The liquidator appeared before various courts between Aug 2019 and Sep 2021, filed GA 8 of 2022 on 10 Jan 2022 for substitution.
  • The court examined the definition of “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c)(i): ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financers, traders involving mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation.
  • Applying the test, the court found the parties acted as merchants/traders in high‑sea sales of metallurgical coke, and the tripartite agreement is a mercantile document; thus the dispute satisfies both ingredients of Section 2(1)(c)(i).
  • The court relied on Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. for the principle that averments in the plaint determine commercial character, and emphasized strict construction of the Act.

Final Outcome

  • The suit (CS 77/2013) and the appeal (APOT 70/2022) are ordered transferred from the Non‑Commercial Division to the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
  • The records will be transmitted and renumbered in the Commercial Division; the matters will be treated as disposed in the Non‑Commercial Division.
  • The court refrained from deciding the second issue concerning the correctness of the amendment and abatement rulings.
  • Consequently, APOT 70 of 2022 and all connected applications are disposed after transfer.

Topics: Commercial Courts Act, Jurisdiction Transfer