Case: AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

statute or the provision, the literal and strict interpretation has to be applied. It may be noted that important words used in the relevant provisions are immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. If the submission on behalf of the original plaintiff is accepted in that case it would be adding something in the statute which is not there in the statute, which is not permissible. On plain reading of the relevant clause it is clear that the expression used must mean actually used or being used. If the intention of the legislature was to expand the scope, in that case the phraseology used would have been different as for example, likely to be used or to be used. The word used denotes actually used and it cannot be said to be either ready for use or likely to be used; or to be used. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal (Supra) and it is observed and held that the word used denotes actually used and not merely ready for use. It is reported that SLP against the said decision has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. 12. Though we are informed that the said decision is assailed before this Court in a Special Leave Petition we are inclined to agree with the view expressed therein. This is for the reason that this Court while examining the issue relating to exclusive land use, though in the different context has laid emphasis on the present user of the land either for agriculture or non-agriculture purpose being relevant. In that regard, the decision relied on by the learned senior advocate for the respondent in the case of Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 550 is noticed, wherein it is observed as under: 6. Section 3 of the said Act speaks of land is used for any industrial purpose, land is used for any commercial purpose and land is used for any other non-agricultural purpose. The emphasis is on the word is used. For the purpose of levy of assessment on non-agricultural lands at the rate specified in the Schedule for land used for industrial purposes, therefore, there has to be a finding as a fact that the land is in fact in praesenti in use for an industrial purpose. The same would apply to a commercial purpose or any other non-agricultural purpose. 9. We are in no doubt whatever, therefore, that it is only land which is actually in use for an industrial purpose as defined in the said Act that can be assessed to non-agricultural assessment at the rate specified for land used for industrial purposes. The wider meaning given to the word used in the judgment under challenge is untenable. Having regard to the fact that the said Act is a taxing statute, no Court is justified in imputing to the legislature an intention that it has not clearly expressed in the language it has employed. (emphasis supplied) 13. The learned senior advocate for the appellant would however, contend that a strict interpretation as in the case of taxing statutes would not be appropriate in the instant case where the issue relates to jurisdiction. In that regard, the learned senior advocate has referred to the statement of objects and reasons with which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is enacted so as to provide speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes so as to create the positive image to the investors world about the independent and responsive Indian Legal System. Hence, he contends that a purposive interpretation be made. It is contended that a wider purport and meaning is to be assigned while entertaining the suit and considering the dispute to be a commercial dispute. Having taken note of the submission we feel that the very purpose for which the CC Act of 2015 has been enacted would be defeated if every other suit merely because it is filed before the Commercial Court is entertained. This is for the reason that the suits which are not actually relating to commercial dispute but being filed merely because of the high value and with the intention of seeking early disposal would only clog the system and block the way for the genuine commercial disputes which may have to be entertained by the Commercial Courts as intended by the law makers. In commercial disputes as defined a special procedure is provided for a class of litigation and a strict procedure will have to be followed to entertain only that class of litigation in that jurisdiction. If the same is strictly interpreted it is not as if those excluded will be non-suited without any remedy. The excluded class of litigation will in any event be entertained in the ordinary Civil Courts wherein the remedy has always existed. 14. In that view it is also necessary to carefully examine and entertain only disputes which actually answers the definition commercial disputes as provided under the Act. In the instant case, as already taken note neither the agreement between the parties refers to the nature of the immovable property being exclusively used for trade or commerce as on the date of the agreement nor is there any pleading to that effect in the plaint. Further the very relief sought in the suit is for execution of the Mortgage Deed which is in the nature of specific performance of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding without reference to nature of the use of the immovable property in trade or commerce as on the date of the suit. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that in the present facts the High Court was justified in its conclusion arrived through the order dated 01.03.2019 impugned herein. The Commercial Court shall therefore return the plaint indicating a date for its presentation before the Court having jurisdiction.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. Be that as it may, the learned senior advocates on both sides have sought to rely on the legal position decided by the various High Courts in the absence of the pronouncement of this Court. The learned senior advocate in that regard have referred to the various decisions on the same point. However, we do not find it appropriate to refer to each of them and over burden this order since we notice that the High Court in fact has referred to various decisions while deciding the instant case and has thereafter arrived at its conclusion. The discussion as made by the High Court with reference to the various decisions is also justified.11. On the other hand, the learned senior advocate for the respondents has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vasu Healthcare Private Limited vs. Gujarat Akruti TCG Biotech Limited, AIR 2017 Gujarat 153 wherein a detailed consideration has been made and the conclusion reached therein by taking note of an earlier decision is that on a plain reading of Clause 2(1)(c) of CC Act, 2015 the expression used must mean actually used or being used. It is further explained that if the intention of the legislature was to expand the scope, in that case the phraseology likely to be used or to be used would have been employed. The verbatim consideration therein is as hereunder;Therefore, if the dispute falls within any of the clause 2(c) the dispute can be said to be commercial dispute for which the Commercial Court would have jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that before the learned Commercial Court the original plaintiff relied upon section 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(xx) of the Commercial Courts Act only. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has candidly admitted and/or conceded that the case shall not fall within clause 2(c)(i); 2(c)(ii) or 2(c)(xx) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is required to be noted that before the learned Commercial Court it was never the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that case would fall within section 2(c)(vii) of the learned Commercial Court. Despite the above we have considered on merits whether even considering section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, the dispute between the parties can be said to be commercial dispute within the definition of section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act or not? Considering section 2(c)(vii), commercial dispute means a dispute arising out of the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. As observed hereinabove, at the time of filing of the suit and even so pleaded in the plaint, the immovable property/plots the agreements between the parties cannot be said to be agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. As per the agreement between the party after getting the plots on lease from the GIDC, the same was required to be thereafter developed by the original defendant No. 1 and after providing all infrastructural facilities and sub-plotting it, the same is required to be given to other persons like the original plaintiff. It is the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that as the original defendant No. 1 has failed to provide any infrastructural facilities and develop the plots and therefore, a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement has been filed. There are other alternative prayers also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the agreement is as such relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. It is the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that as in clause (vii) of section 2(c), the pharseology used is not actually used or being used and therefore, even if at present the plot is not used and even if it is likely to be used even in future, in that case also, section 2(c)(vii) shall be applicable and therefore, the Commercial Court would have jurisdiction. The aforesaid has no substance. As per the cardinal principle of law while interpreting a particular statute or the provision, the literal and strict interpretation has to be applied. It may be noted that important words used in the relevant provisions are immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. If the submission on behalf of the original plaintiff is accepted in that case it would be adding something in the statute which is not there in the statute, which is not permissible. On plain reading of the relevant clause it is clear that the expression used must mean actually used or being used. If the intention of the legislature was to expand the scope, in that case the phraseology used would have been different as for example, likely to be used or to be used. The word used denotes actually used and it cannot be said to be either ready for use or likely to be used; or to be used. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal (Supra) and it is observed and held that the word used denotes actually used and not merely ready for use. It is reported that SLP against the said decision has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court12. Though we are informed that the said decision is assailed before this Court in a Special Leave Petition we are inclined to agree with the view expressed therein. This is for the reason that this Court while examining the issue relating to exclusive land use, though in the different context has laid emphasis on the present user of the land either for agriculture or non-agriculture purpose being relevantHaving taken note of the submission we feel that the very purpose for which the CC Act of 2015 has been enacted would be defeated if every other suit merely because it is filed before the Commercial Court is entertained. This is for the reason that the suits which are not actually relating to commercial dispute but being filed merely because of the high value and with the intention of seeking early disposal would only clog the system and block the way for the genuine commercial disputes which may have to be entertained by the Commercial Courts as intended by the law makers. In commercial disputes as defined a special procedure is provided for a class of litigation and a strict procedure will have to be followed to entertain only that class of litigation in that jurisdiction. If the same is strictly interpreted it is not as if those excluded will be non-suited without any remedy. The excluded class of litigation will in any event be entertained in the ordinary Civil Courts wherein the remedy has always existed