Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 30.06.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Ramen Roy (FMA No. 854 of 2024) and Ashis Sarkar alias Ashis Kumar Seal alias Ashis Seal (FMA No. 859 of 2024); Respondents – Sambriddhi Real Estate Private Limited and others.
  • Background: The appellants entered into registered development agreements (Nos. 1039 and 1038) and powers of attorney (Nos. 1072 and 1061) dated 10 February 2016 with the respondents for two housing‑project properties. Alleging delay in development work, the appellants filed suits in 2020 seeking cancellation of the agreements and powers of attorney.
  • Trial Court Action: The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Barasat, ordered the plaints to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, directing re‑filing before the appropriate Commercial Court, on the ground that the disputes were “commercial disputes” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act). The order (Order No. 22 dated 17 May 2024) was affirmed by the appellate bench.
  • Arguments (Appellants): Asserted that the agreements, being registered, transferred ownership rights and therefore were not pure construction contracts; contended Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the CC Act did not apply; argued that the “specified value” should be linked to the reliefs claimed and could be determined by the plaintiff; raised limitation concerns if the suit were re‑filed.
  • Arguments (Respondents): Emphasised that the agreements were for construction and infrastructure; highlighted that the delay in filing the Order VII Rule 10 application was due to the appellants’ failure to pay court fees, not the respondents; cited judgments supporting a strict reading of Section 2(1)(c)(vi) and Section 21 of the CC Act; argued that the market value of the properties determines the specified value.
  • Judicial Reasoning:
  • Interpreted Section 2(1)(c)(vi) to cover any contract having a construction/infrastructure component, irrespective of additional ownership‑transfer clauses.
  • Clarified that the “specified value” under Section 12(1)(c) is the market value of the immovable property when relief relates to such property, overriding any Court Fees Act provisions (Section 21 of the CC Act).
  • Found the market values from the agreements to be Rs 34,65,000 (FMA 854) and Rs 5,28,49,097 (FMA 859), both exceeding the Rs 30 lakh pecuniary threshold for commercial courts.
  • Determined that Section 12A of the CC Act was not applicable because the suits were filed before the cut‑off date (20 August 2022) and before the CC Act became mandatory for such suits.
  • Concluded that Section 15 does not permit transfer of a suit instituted after the CC Act’s commencement to a commercial court; the only remedy is to return the plaint for re‑filing before the proper commercial jurisdiction.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate bench upheld the trial judge’s order, directing that both plaints be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for presentation before the appropriate Commercial Court.
  • Both appeals (FMA 854/2024 and FMA 859/2024) were dismissed on contest.
  • Interim orders, if any, were vacated; no order as to costs was made; certified copies to be supplied upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Commercial Courts Act, Real Estate Development Dispute