- 1 -

* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2021

% 09.12.2021

# Blue Nile Developers Private Limited,

A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956

Having its office at Plot No.304, 1-III, Road No.78,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director.

… Petitioner

Vs.

$ 1. Movva Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Aged 55 years,

D.No.9-19-4, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam

District.

2. Vasant Makineni, S/o.Jaswanth Mohan Makineni, aged 46 years,

R/o.2308, Palmetto Way, South Lake, Texas 76092, USA rep by

Rushyant Mulpuri Ramakrishna, aged 35 years, Flat No.F-4, Trendset

Vantage, Road No.14, Banjara hills, Hyderabd, Telangana State.

3. Chundru Venkata Subba Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, aged about 58 years,

R/o.Alpha, 407, Silicon County, Madhapurm, Hyderabad.

…. Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioners: SRI S.SUBBA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI C.KALYAN

<Gist :

>Head Note:

1. (2020) 15 SCC 585

2. (2016) 0 Supreme (Del) 2416

3. (2019) 0 Supreme (Telangana) 158

? Cases referred:

- 2 -

HIGH COUIRT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATHI.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2021

Between:

Blue Nile Developers Private Limited

… Petitioner

Vs.

Movva Chandra Sekhar and others

…. Respondents

Date of Judgment Pronounced: 09.12.2021

Submitted for Approval:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

- 3 -

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2021

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan)

This civil revision petition arises against the order in I.A.No.16 of

2021 in C.O.S.No.2 of 2020 on the file of Special Judge for Trial and

Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam dated 26.03.2021

dismissing the application for return of the plaint.

2. The petitioner herein is the 1

st

defendant in the suit and

the 1

st

petitioner in the interlocutory application before the court below.

The 1

st

respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondent in

the IA before the court below. The 2

nd

and 3

rd

respondents herein are not

the contesting respondents and they sail with the petitioner herein before

the court below.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the 1

st

respondent.

4. The facts of the case are that the 1

st

respondent herein initiated an

action in COS No.2 of 2020 on the file of Special Judge for Trial and

Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner

and other respondents herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,79,49,771/-

with interest at 18% per anum on principal amount of Rs.1,26,57,500/-

from the date of suit till its realisation on the ground that an excess

amount was paid to the petitioner herein with respect to the construction

of the villa as described the particulars of villa in the plaint schedule.

- 4 -

5. Initially, the 1

st

respondent herein filed the suit seeking the above

said relief before the learned Principal District Court at Visakhapatnam

on 31.12.2019 and the same was returned on scrutiny for presentation

before the proper court having jurisdiction to entertain the said matter on

the ground that the nature of transaction is covered under Section 2(vi)

of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the act”). On return of

the same the said suit was represented before the Special Court for

Commercial Disputes on 02.01.2020 and the Special Court also took

objection with respect to the maintainability of the said suit.

Subsequently, on 06.01.2020, the 1

st

respondent herein represented the

said suit again before the learned Principal District Court at

Visakhapatnam and on hearing the learned counsel for the respondent

herein, the learned District Judge returned the plaint for presentation of

the same before the proper court vide order, dated 07.01.2020. In

pursuance of the same, the above said suit was represented before the

court below/the Special Court for Commercial Disputes and the same

was numbered as COS No.2 of 2020 after complying with the certain

office objections. The 1

st

respondent herein also filed an I.A.No.2 of

2020 in COS No.2 of 2020 before the court below seeking interim order

of attachment before judgment of the suit schedule property as the

petitioner herein failed to furnish the security and the same is pending

for enquiry. The 1

st

respondent herein also filed another I.A.No.27 of

2020 in the same suit under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking

appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the

suit schedule property by obtaining necessary photographs and the same

is also pending for hearing. However, the petitioner herein as 1

st

- 5 -

defendant is contesting the said suit by filing the written statement before

the court below. At that stage, the petitioner herein also filed the above

said I.A.No.16 of 2021 in COS No.2 of 2020 before the court

below/special court for commercial disputes under Order VII Rule 10

CPC read with Section 151 CPC to return the plaint on the ground of

jurisdiction contending that the special court has no jurisdiction to

entertain the said suit as the dispute between the parties cannot be

termed as a “commercial dispute” within the definition of Section 2(1)(c)

of the Act. The petitioner herein contends that the dispute is relating to

the construction of a residential building and the transaction between the

parties is not a “commercial transaction” to attract the provisions of the

Act and as such sought for return of the plaint.

6. On the other hand, the above said IA was opposed by the

1

st

respondent herein contending that the above said suit is maintainable

before the court below/ the special court as it is covered under Section

2(1)(c) (vi) of the Act specifically.

7. In view of the above said rival contentions and averments of both

the parties in the above said IA, the court below framed a point for

consideration to the effect that whether the dispute between the parties is

a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the

Act?

8. After hearing both the sides, it has come to a conclusion that the

dispute involved in the above said suit squarely falls under Section

2(1)(c)(vi) of the Act and as such it has rejected the above said IA for

- 6 -

return of the plaint against which the present revision arises at the

instance of the first defendant therein.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute

raised in the above said suit cannot be termed as a commercial dispute

within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Act and the court below

erroneously held the same treating it as a commercial dispute under the

head of “construction and infrastructure contracts,” including tenders.

In the plaint, there is no specific averment to that effect and as such it is

liable to be rejected.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1

st

respondent submits that

the court below rightly entertained the suit and rejected the above said

application for return of the plaint and he referred to the contents of the

plaint and the supporting documents filed along with it in order to show

that it comes under the category of “Construction and Infrastructure

Contracts” as defined in the above said section under the Act.

11. In the backdrop of the above said facts and rival contentions of

both the sides, the issue now falls for consideration before this court is

that whether the dispute raised between the parties in the above said suit

is a “Commercial Dispute” within the meaning and definition of Section

2(1)(c)(vi) of the Act?

12. In order to resolve the same, it is necessary to reproduce the

Section 2(1)(c) of the Act as hereunder:

“2. Definitions: -

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

- 7 -

(a) …

(aa)…

(b) …

(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of –

(i) Ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and

traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including

enforcement and interpretation of such documents;

(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;

(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;

(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft

equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the

same;

(v) carriage of goods;

(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;

(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively

in trade or commerce;

(viii) franchising agreements;

(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;

(x) management and consultancy agreements;

(xi) joint venture agreements;

(xii) shareholders agreements;

(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the

services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;

(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage; (xv) partnership

agreements;

(xvi) technology development agreements; (xvii) intellectual

property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks,

copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and

semiconductor integrated circuits;

(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;

(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources

including electromagnetic spectrum;

(xx) insurance and re-insurance;

(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and

(xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the

Central Government.

Explanation.––A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a

commercial dispute merely because—

(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property

or for realisation of monies out of immovable property

given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to

immovable property;

- 8 -

(b) to (h) …

(i) “Specified Value”, in relation to a commercial dispute,

shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit

as determined in accordance with section 12 which shall not

be less than one crore rupees w.e.f. 03.05.2018 or such higher

value, as may be notified by the Central Government.

(2) …”

13. For the purpose of seeing the applicability of the above said

provision it is necessary to look into the relevant recitals of the plaint as

hereunder:

“(c) In furtherance of sale agreement, a sale deed was executed on

01.07.2017 bearing No.3300/2017 registered with Sub-Registrar,

Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam by receiving the entire sale

consideration of Rs.2,92,35,000/- (Rupees Two crores ninety two lakhs

thirty five thousand only). On the even date, a construction agreement

was also entered between the plaintiff and the defendants, to complete

the constructions in all aspects within three months from the date of

execution of the agreement and deliver the constructed villa to the

plaintiff. It was agreed by defendants to construct Villa No.16 in

accordance with basic plans and designs approved by authorities

concerned and particulars contained therein. The above sale deed and

construction agreements are filed as document Nos.2 and 3 and may be

read as part of the plaint for better appreciation of facts.

(d) In addition to the above, Builder also executed an agreement on

21.06.2017 in respect of further enhancements/customizations beyond

the base promised villa; including additional civil works modifications,

further high end interior modifications, which were to be done post

completion of the construction of the basic villa. This included high end

marble, premium electrical fittings, complete air conditioning, false

ceiling in all rooms, high end plumbing/sanitary fittings, automation,

and other decorative/additional works as enumerated in the agreement

for additional works for a sum of additional Rs.240 lakhs. This was due

to be paid if and when the above works were executed.

Thus, pursuant to the initial sale agreement, three separate

agreements with more specificity were entered in between the Builder

and Owner. These are:

- 9 -

Part Document Description Total amount as

mentioned in the

document (Rs.)

1. Sale deed Villa No.16 – consists of GF 2977 sft; SF 3136 sft;

1397 sft, in total 7510 sq. feet together with site

measuring an extent of 725.58 sq.yards.

2,92,35,000-00

2. Construction

Agreement

Completion of construction of villa 16 in

accordance with basic plans and designs approved

by authorities.

27,65,000-00

3. Additional

works

agreement

The builder undertakes to provide additionally high

end interior modifications/ customizations/

amenities for a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/-

2,40,00,000.00

(d) The plaintiff has paid all the amounts to defendants per the

following schedule:

Towards sale deed

2,92,35,000-00 (1) Rs.1,90,00,000 by way of

DD No.268411/30.06.2017;

(2) Rs.29,36,250 by way of DD

No.2689413/01.07.2017 and

(3) Rs.23,08,750 by way of

cheque No.000150/ 30.06.2017

(HDFC Bank)

Towards construction

Agreement

27,65,000-00 Paid on 10.08.2018

(Vijaya Bank Disburse

CA 408200301000393)

Advance towards

Additional works

agreement

32,35,000-00 Paid on 10.08.2018

(Vijaya Bank disburse

CA 408200301000393)

Thus as can be seen, all payments due to the Builder against the sale

deed, and the construction agreement have been fully paid, and an excess

amount has also been paid as advance against the Builders promise to fulfil

his commitments.”

14. A reading of the above said recitals of the plaint, shows that the

suit is registered basing upon an agreement of sale dated 21.06.2017, sale

deed bearing No.3300/2017 dated 01.07.2017, construction agreement,

dated 01.07.2017, and additional works agreement, dated 21.06.2017

with reference to the completion of construction of Villa No.16 in a

gated community project along with the other facilities and amenities to

be provided as agreed upon. It is also necessary to refer to some of the

recitals in the agreement of sale dated 21.06.2017 as follows:

- 10 -

“A. The Seller has proposed to develop a residential project named as

“PEBBLE BEACH” on 8.07 acres of land (Project) situated at Rushikonda,

Visakhapatnam, in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

in a phased manner comprising of Triplex Villas and Residential

Apartments.

(i) Phase I of the project consisting of Triplex Villas which shall be

developed on 7.39 Acres of land and

(ii) Phase II of the project consisting of Luxury Residential

Apartments, which will be developed on the remaining land of 0.68 acres.”

“7. THE CLUB

7.1 The Club

7.1.1 The Seller proposed to set up the Club which, together with

its assets and facilities, shall form part of the Common Areas of the

Project. The Seller reserves the right to decide the amenities and

facilities to be provided in the Club.

7.1.2 It is expected that the Club will become operational

simultaneously with the completion of the Phase I of the Project.”

…

“10. COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES AND AMENITIES

10.1 Undivided interest

The purchaser together with all other purchasers of Units in the

Project shall have only proportionate undivided variable and impartible

interest and not any individual right in all common areas, amenities and

facilities built or provided in the Project for the Common use and

enjoyment.

10.2 Water Supply

10.2.1 Water supply to the residents of the Project will be made

available from deep tube wells or any other available source as may

be permitted by the authorities concerned installation of on-lines

pumps to boost water supply is not permitted.”

10.2.2 The Triplex Unit shall be given one water supply

connection. The purchaser shall reimburse the installation cost

thereof to the Seller and when demanded by the Seller and the usage

charges will be applicable on actual consumption basis.

10.3 Sewerage

The entire sewage of the Project will be treated by a Sewage

Treatment Plant (“Plant”) having the latest sewage treatment technology.

- 11 -

This plant will efficiently treat the sewage and provide clean treated water

at the end which may be used for horticulture purposes. All the units in

the project are to be connected to this system.

10.4 Solid waste management

The Seller/Maintenance Company/Association or any agency

appointed by the Seller/Maintenance Company/ Association will

arrange for collection and disposal of solid waste as per relevant statutes.

10.5 Storm water disposal

There will be a network of storm water management system

through the entire Project. In order for this system to work, it is

imperative that the drains are kept clear and clean at all locations.

10.6 Power supply

10.6.1 Installation costs,

Installation costs, deposits and other charges to be paid by the

Seller to the Power Supply Authority concerned towards obtaining

installing power and for providing electricity to Common areas like Street

light, parks, green verge, community facilities etc., shall be borne and

payable by the purchaser proportionately. The Seller/Maintenance

Company/ Association shall recover such installation costs, deposits and

other charges from the Purchaser.”

10.7 Diesel Generator backup

10.7.1 The Purchaser will be provided 100% power and will be

charged on consumption basis.

10.7.2 The actual running cost and maintenance charges of DG

will be separately charged from the Purchaser along with the other

owners of Units on the basis of proportionate back up power subscribed

by him.”

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

infrastructure construction projects include the construction of highways

streets and roads, bridges, water supply and resources and waste

management and waste water management and power generation and

transmission etc., but not the construction of gated community villas.

Hence the provisions of the Act cannot be extended to the subject project

and the subject matter of the suit. The expression used in Sec.2(1)(c)(vi)

- 12 -

of the Act i.e., “construction and infrastructure contracts” shall be read

as one sentence but not into two, separately. According to him there is

no “construction and infrastructure contract” in the suit transaction and

it is only a “construction contract” and as such this definition would not

apply for entertaining the suit by the court below/commercial courts

16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent further

submits that the petitioner herein is indulged in construction of gated

community villas and apartments which is a big residential project and

executed agreements and registered sale deeds on various dates to the

various customers/buyers including the 1

st

respondent herein specifically

under the above said documents dated 21.06.2017 and 01.07.2017

respectively on receipt of total money paid and excess amount received.

Hence, the suit transaction comes under the above said definition for

assuming the jurisdiction by the special court/the court below.

17. In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relies upon the following decisions:

1) AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. VS.

K.S.INFRASPACE LLP

1

in Civil Appeal No.7843 of 2019,

of the Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.2019 wherein the

matter arises for invocation of the clause 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act.

The issue involved therein that whether the immovable property

involved could be considered as being used exclusively in trade or

commerce. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that

“it is necessary to carefully examine and undertake only disputes

1

(2020) 15 SCC 585

- 13 -

which actually answer the definition of Commercial Courts as

provided under the Act. In the instant case 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 there is any pleading to that effect in the plaint and

the relief sought in the suit is for execution of the mortgage deed in

the nature of specific performance of the terms of memorandum of

understanding without reference to the nature of the use of

immovable property of trade or commerce as on the date of the

suit.” Therefore their Lordships confirmed the order of the high

court dated 01.03.2019 and directed the Commercial Court to

return the plaint for presentation of the same before the court

having jurisdiction.

In our considered view, the above said judgment has no

application to the facts and circumstances of this case on hand as

the issue involved herein is different as indicated above.

2) SONI DAVE vs. M/S.TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES

EXPOSITIONS PVT. LTD

2

., in CS (OS) No.2330 & 2331 of

2008, IA No.19934 and 19927 of 2015 and CCP (O) No.30 & 29

of 2016 on the file of Delhi High Court dated 19.07.2016, wherein

the matter arises under Section 12 of the Act with respect to the

determination of the specified value. It was held that where the

relief is for recovery of money, the amount due upto the date of

filing of the suit is relevant but not the amount due which may be

2

(2016) 0 Supreme (Del) 186

- 14 -

falling due thereafter for the purpose of determination of the

specified value as per Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.

The above said judgment also has no application to the case

on hand since there is no dispute with regard to the specified value

mentioned in the present suit.

And

3) M.V.RAMANA RAO vs. N.SUBASH

3

in CRP No.6745

of 2018 on the file of the High Court for the State of Telangana

dated 10.04.2019, wherein it was held that the Commercial court

committed a grave error of jurisdiction in allowing the application

for amendment to include set off which is barred by limitation and

therefore allowed the revision.

The said case also has no application for the present case on

hand since that issue is not involved herein.

18. For the purpose of the present case on hand it is necessary to look

into the scope and meaning of some of the clauses of Section 2(1)(c) of

the Act before going into the scope and meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of

the Act.

(i) Clause(i) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act reads as ‘ordinary

transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers, and traders such as those

relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and

interpretation of such documents’.

3

(2019) 0 Supreme (Telangana) 158

- 15 -

That means it covers ordinary transactions of merchants in

relation to the mercantile documents and either enforcement of such

documents or interpretation of such documents, ordinary transactions of

bankers in relation to mercantile documents and either enforcement of

such documents or interpretation of such documents, ordinary

transactions of financiers in relation to their mercantile documents and

either enforcement of such documents or interpretation of such

documents and ordinary transactions of traders in relation to their

mercantile documents and either enforcement of such documents or

interpretations of such documents.

(ii) Similarly clause (iv) of Section 2(1)(c) reads as ‘transactions

relating to aircraft, air craft engines, air craft equipment and helicopters,

including sales, leasing and financing of the same’.

That means it covers the transactions relating to the aircraft and

it’s sales, it’s leasing and it’s financing, the transactions of air craft

engines and it’s sales, it’s leasing and it’s financing, the transactions of

aircraft equipment and it’s sales, it’s leasing and its financing and the

transactions of helicopters and it’s sales, it’s leasing and it’s financing.

iii) Similarly when it comes to the issue involved that is

clause (vi) of the Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as, “construction

and infrastructure contracts, including tenders”, means and covers that

construction contracts, tenders relating to construction, infrastructure

contracts, tenders relating to infrastructure and construction, and

infrastructure contracts and tenders of construction and infrastructure

contracts.

- 16 -

19. To understand better the meaningful expansion of the above said

caluse, the dictionary meaning of the words “construction” and

“infrastructure” can also be seen as hereunder:

OXFORD LEARNERS DICTIONARIES:

 Construction-

(1) The process or method of building or making something,

especially roads, buildings, bridges, etc.

(2) The people and activities involved in making buildings

(3) The way that something has been built or made

(4) A thing that has been built or made .

 Infrastructure- the basic systems and services that are necessary for

a country or an organisation to run smoothly, for example

buildings, transport and water and power supplies.

LEXICO:

 Infrastructure - the basic physical and organisational structures and

facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the

operation of a society or enterprise.

 Construction-

(1) The action of building something, typically a large structure

(2) The industry of constructing buildings, roads, etc.

(3) The style or method used in the building of something

(4) A building or other structure

Construction is an activity while infrastructure is the outcome of

that activity.

MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY:

 Construction-

(1) The process, art, or manner of constructing something

(2) The construction industry

(3) A sculpture that is put together out of separate pieces of often

disparate materials

 Infrastructure-

- 17 -

(1) The system of public works of a country, state or region

(2) The underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system

or organisation)

(3) The permanent installations required for military purposes

Since the above said two “words” also carry different meanings in

contrast the above said expansion of the said clause is necessitated.

20. Hence from the above, it is clear that the “legislature” has included

the various types of commercial transactions to bring under the fold of

“commercial dispute” in case of any dispute arises from any of those

transactions. On a careful reading of the above said provision of the Act,

it is obvious that the legislature has taken due care while incorporating

the above said clauses from (i) to (xxii) in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act by

avoiding the repetition of words and sentences without effecting the full

fledged meaning of the same even on expansion of the said each clause.

Therefore, either giving any restrictive meaning or reading of a clause in

isolation and expansion of one word only in the said clause would

hamper and frustrate the meaningful definition of the said clause on it’s

expansion by abrogating certain category of transactions from the

purview of the benefit of the above said Act which is not otherwise the

intendment of the legislature in bringing out the said enactment.

For the sake of illustration, if we confine the definition of clause

(vi) of the above said provision of the Act to the infrastructure contracts

only, then it would exclude the category of construction contracts and

construction and infrastructure contracts from it’s purview.

- 18 -

Suppose, if it is read as “construction and infrastructure contracts”

as one word/one sentence, then it would exclude the category of the

construction contracts and infrastructure contracts separately from its

purview.

But that is not the intendment of the above said central enactment,

as it is clear from the scope and object of the Act. All the types of

“commercial transactions” are saved in the Section 2(1)(c) of the Act

subject to the condition that it satisfies the “specified value” stipulated

under the Act for the purpose of assumption of the jurisdiction by the

Special Court/the Commercial Court. Except that no category of

commercial transaction is excluded from the purview of the above said

Act which is evident from the reading of the above said section and its

clauses.

20. In view of the same, as stated supra, the contents of the plaint and

the suit documents dated 21.06.2017 and 01.07.2017 respectively show

that the transactions reflect building and development of a residential

project named as “PEBBLE BEACH” in an extent of Ac.8-07 cents of

land situated at Rishikonda, Visakhapatnam in the State of Andhra

Pradesh in a phased manner comprising of Triplex villas and residential

apartments, construction of Triplex Villas in an extent of Ac.7-39 of land

including the subject villa in a gated community project with further

enhancements/customisations in the said villa No.16, setting up of a

club with its assets and facilities in the common areas of the project,

availability of a water supply for the residents of the Project with deep

tube wells, connecting with the sewerage treatment plant with latest

- 19 -

technology to the entire sewage project, arrangement of solid waste

management for it’s collection and disposal, network of storm water

disposal to the entire project and installation of power supply by

providing electricity to common areas like street lights, parks, green

verge, community facilities etc in the said project with 100% Diesel

Generator backup.

21. Therefore, we hold that the above said terms/transactions of the

said documents would reveal that they come under the category of

“Construction and Infrastructure Contracts” and the dispute thereof is a

commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 subject to valuation of the suit. Since the

value of suit is above the specified value under the Act as on the date of

institution of the suit, the court below/the commercial court has got

jurisdiction to proceed with the matter pending before it. Accordingly we

direct the trial court to dispose of the C.O.S.No.2 of 2020 on it’s file as

expeditiously as possible on merits as per law.

22. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

________________________________

JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

December 9, 2021

LMV

- 20 -

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2021

December 9, 2021

LMV