<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (3) TMI 1560 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465221</link>
    <description>A personal loan claim with interest does not become a commercial dispute merely because interest is charged. The Delhi High Court applied Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and held that clause (i) covers transactions in the ordinary course of merchants, bankers, financiers or traders, typically involving mercantile documents. Here, the loan was advanced from personal funds, was not shown to arise in the ordinary course of financing business, and lacked the mercantile character required for commercial jurisdiction. The plaint was therefore liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the suit was not maintainable as a commercial suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:42:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1560 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465221</link>
      <description>A personal loan claim with interest does not become a commercial dispute merely because interest is charged. The Delhi High Court applied Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and held that clause (i) covers transactions in the ordinary course of merchants, bankers, financiers or traders, typically involving mercantile documents. Here, the loan was advanced from personal funds, was not shown to arise in the ordinary course of financing business, and lacked the mercantile character required for commercial jurisdiction. The plaint was therefore liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the suit was not maintainable as a commercial suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>