Personal service contracts are not commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, preserving ordinary civil jurisdiction for employment matters.

A contract of personal service between employer and employee does not fall within "agreement for provision of services" under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court reasoned that the phrase must be read in its commercial sense and cannot be stretched to ordinary employment relationships governed by service law and general contract principles. It also noted that a contrary reading would unjustifiably expand Commercial Court jurisdiction to every high-value employment dispute. The dispute was therefore treated as a civil suit rather than a commercial dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employment dispute arising from a contract of personal service falls within the expression "agreement for provision of services" under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, so as to constitute a commercial dispute and justify rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The dispute arose from an employment agreement governing remuneration, notice period, confidentiality, non-compete obligations, posting, and other service conditions. The Court held that the expression "provision of services" in the Commercial Courts Act must be understood in its commercial sense and cannot be stretched to include an ordinary employer-employee relationship involving personal service. Such disputes are governed by service law principles and the common law of contracts, not by the commercial dispute regime. The Court further held that accepting the contrary construction would produce an absurd result and would improperly expand the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts to every high-value employment dispute. Reliance on the earlier view that similar employment disputes do not fall within the Act was found to be justified.

Conclusion: The employment dispute was not a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the suit was rightly treated as a civil suit. The challenge to the impugned order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract of personal service between employer and employee is not an "agreement for provision of services" within Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, because the commercial dispute definition must be construed strictly and limited to disputes of commercial character.

---