Dismissing an application for rejection of the plaint in a ₹65 lakh loan-recovery suit, the Court held that the transaction could not be summarily classified as non-commercial without examining the pleadings and supporting documents at trial.

The Court was hearing the defendant’s application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit did not constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and was barred by the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy observed: “On a conjoint and harmonious reading of these two provisions of CC Act in the light of the averments made in the plaint, this Court finds that the financial transaction between the parties, as pleaded in the plaint on the basis of the available documents disclosed and mentioned in the plaint, the nature of transaction between the parties is required to be ascertained first. From the case made out in the plaint, it cannot be summarily said that the transaction between the parties, ex facie, is not a commercial transaction or that the dispute stated in the plaint, ex facie, is not a commercial dispute within the meaning of CC Act, unless a proper trial takes place on the issue.”

The Bench added: “The provisions laid down under Rule 11 to Order VII of CPC is not a mandate on the Court. The provision only mandates on a meaningful reading of the plaint, if the plaint, ex facie, is found to be, inter alia, barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected, at the threshold. However, if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the Court finds an arguable case is there to ascertain the nature and character of the plaint case by holding a fact finding enquiry, then such a plaint cannot be rejected, at the threshold in a summary manner and the plaint must stand for trial. Plaintiff cannot be non-suited, at the threshold, in a summary manner so loosely and hastily if an arguable and a triable case is pleaded in the plaint.”

Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury appeared for the plaintiff, while Advocate V.V.V. Sastry appeared for the defendant.

Background

The plaintiff alleged that it had advanced ₹65 lakh to the defendant through bank transfers, carrying interest at 12% per annum. It relied upon its ledger, bank statements and income-tax records to contend that the defendant had made a part-payment towards interest and deposited tax deducted at source but subsequently failed to repay the principal and outstanding interest.

Seeking rejection of the plaint, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had not referred to any written agreement or mercantile document capable of bringing the transaction within the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The defendant further argued that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor produced a valid certificate permitting it to carry on money-lending business. It consequently maintained that the suit was barred by the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940.

The plaintiff responded that clauses (c) and (f) of Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, did not confine commercial disputes to transactions recorded in written contracts. It submitted that the nature of the transaction and the documents relied upon could be determined only through a factual inquiry.

Regarding the money-lending objection, the plaintiff relied upon Section 13 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, to contend that the provision permitted the Court to allow a defect relating to the requisite certificate to be cured upon payment of a penalty.

The defendant had also filed its written statement beyond 120 days of service of summons on the basis of a concession given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s separate application seeking removal of the written statement from the record remained pending.

Court’s Observations

The Court found that the definition of a commercial dispute under clause (c) of Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, did not prescribe a written contract as an indispensable requirement. Clause (f) of Section 2 also recognised documents of different kinds.

The Court held that the alleged financial transaction was supported in the plaint by a ledger, bank statements and income-tax records. The nature and character of those documents, and whether the transaction qualified as a commercial dispute, required determination through trial.

The Court distinguished Prime Hitech Textiles LLP v. Manish Kumar (2022), where a coordinate Bench had found an unimpeachable basis for concluding that the transaction was not commercial.

The Court observed: “In the matter of: Prime Hitech Textiles LLP (supra), a co-ordinate Bench has returned the plaint since it had found an unimpeachable case for rejection of plaint that the transaction stated in the plaint was not of commercial in nature. In the instant case, from reading of the statements made in the plaint, this Court finds to determine the issues raised by the defendant, the same requires a properly constituted trial of the suit and hence the instant plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. Thus, the ratio in the said judgment would not apply in the facts of the instant case.”

The Court similarly distinguished Meena Vohra v. Master Hosts Pvt. Ltd. and Others (2025), observing that the Delhi High Court had found an unimpeachable case that the dispute before it was not commercial. The pleadings in the present suit, however, required a factual inquiry.

The Court held that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, would be warranted where a meaningful reading of the plaint disclosed that it was barred by law. Where the plaint instead raised an arguable and triable question requiring evidence, the plaintiff could not be non-suited summarily.

Applying that test, the Court directed the suit to proceed while preserving the defendant’s right to raise all questions concerning its maintainability.

The Court held: “In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the considered and firm view that the instant plaint shall stand for trial where the defendant shall be at liberty to take all points of maintainability of the suit along with other issues and the issue regarding maintainability, if raised, shall also be tried during the trial of the suit along with other issues.”

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the maintainability objections raised by the defendant.

Addressing Section 13 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, the Court followed Dutta Vinimay Private Limited v. Dinesh Singh (2026). It held that the statutory framework contained a mechanism for curing the absence of the requisite certificate and required the plaintiff to be granted an opportunity before the plaint could be rejected on that ground.

The Court observed: “Insofar as, the issue raised under the BML Act, as narrated above, after reading the provisions laid down under Section 13 of BML Act, this Court has already rendered its view In the matter of: Dutta Vinimay Private Limited (Supra) that since a curing provision is there under the statute, the money-lender/plaintiff should be granted an opportunity before rejecting the plaint.”

The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court orders relied upon by the defendant because they arose from criminal proceedings and did not concern the rejection of a plaint in a civil suit.

The Court clarified that its ruling did not determine the pending dispute concerning the defendant’s written statement, which had been filed beyond 120 days.

The Court stated: “It is also made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on filing of the written statement by the defendant and the application pending in connection therewith filed by the plaintiff. The application shall be decided in accordance with law.”

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the defendant’s application for rejection of the plaint without imposing costs. It directed the suit to proceed to trial and permitted the defendant to raise its objections concerning commercial jurisdiction and the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940. The pending application concerning the written statement was left to be decided separately in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Divij Mercantiles Private Limited v. Ashoka Hawai and Shoes Pvt. Ltd.

Appearances

Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury with Advocates Hemant Tiwari and Shantanu Mishra

Defendant: Advocates V.V.V. Sastry and Khushi Gupta

Click here to read/download Judgment