In a judgment delivered on October 7, 2024, the Delhi High Court rejected a appeal recorded by Kartar Singh Kochhar, challenging the characterization of a debate with ICICI Bank Ltd. as a commercial debate beneath the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The case spun around a property within the Safdarjung Improvement Zone, Unused Delhi, which was in part rented to ICICI Bank without a formal composed understanding.
The solicitor had recorded a suit looking for the recuperation of ownership, harms, and mesne benefits for a parcel of the property—specifically, 302 sq. feet on the ground floor—used by ICICI Bank for its trade operations. In spite of the fact that the parties had a earlier rent understanding for a distinctive parcel of the property, the extra space in address was let out on an verbal understanding, which the solicitor contended was inadequately to classify the debate as commercial.
The respondent bank maintained that the property had been utilized exclusively for commercial reasons, making the case come under the definition of a commercial dispute. After the Trial Court upheld the bank's position, Kochhar filed a case in the Delhi High Court to have the decision made by the lower court overturned. The High Court, headed by Justice Manoj Jain, upheld the validity of oral agreements in accordance with Indian law and held that the dispute's commercial basis remains unaffected.
"An agreement would not lose its sheen by mere fact that it is oral. The existence of oral agreements is valid in the eyes of law, and the possession of additional space corroborates the execution of such an agreement."
The Court further clarified that under the Commercial Courts Act, a commercial dispute includes agreements related to immovable property used exclusively for trade or commerce, regardless of whether the agreement is oral or written. Citing previous judgments, the Court held that disputes involving commercial use of property—such as the bank's operations—undeniably qualify as commercial disputes.
With this decision, the Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding, dismissing Kochhar’s petition and reinforcing the validity of commercial disputes arising from oral agreements when immovable property is used for business purposes.
TAGS: Delhi High Court ICICI Bank commercial dispute oral agreement Commercial Courts Act property dispute Safdarjung Development Area.
