TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The Appellant had filed a suit before the ld. Trial Court seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,33,073/- against Hintek Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and other Respondents. 4. The case of the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff before the ld. Trial Court is that he was appointed as a Senior Manager/General Manager on 1st August, 2016 at Hintek Electronics Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the letter dated 1st August, 2016. 5. Further vide an e-mail dated 17th August, 2016, the terms of employment of the Appellant/Plaintiff were stipulated are as under: "7. That the terms of the employment of the Plaintiff were as follows: a. Salary: Rs. 50,000 with appraisal of Rs. 5,000 after three months, i.e. w.e.f. 1.11.2026, on a consolidated sala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....September, 2024, the suit was dismissed and the view taken by the Commercial Court was that the substratum of the dispute did not constitute a commercial dispute under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 14. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12th September, 2024 shows that the ld. Trial Court has cited various decisions to hold that the subject matter of the dispute is not a commercial dispute. The case laws relied upon by the ld. Trial Court are as under: i. Arvind Processing Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Mayursinh Bhupathsinh Vaghela [2019 SCC OnLine Guj 4100] ii. M/s Ekanek Networks Private Limited v. Aditya Mertia [2024:DHC:4384] iii. Atmastco Ltd. v. Mandeep Kalra [2024:DHC:4830] iv. T.V. Tod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be a commercial dispute, the Court ought to have returned the plaint and directed the suit to be presented before the appropriate Court instead of dismissing the suit in its entirety. 17. None appears in this Appeal for the Respondents despite being served. 18. As stated above, the Respondents had remained ex parte even before the Trial Court. 19. In this appeal, Respondent no.3 has already been deleted and Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24th February, 2026 for non-appearance despite being served. 20. A perusal of the plaint filed before the ld. Trial Court would show that the suit would not be a commercial dispute, as it is a dispute between employer and employee arising out of the terms of emp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne of the parties to another, is purely and simply a service dispute governed by the Service Law jurisprudence and the Common Law, for which remedy lies elsewhere. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the legislature never intended to bring a contract for the purpose of rendering personal services of an executive or administrative nature within the scope and ambit of the CC Act. In essence, intra-departmental disputes between the employer and employee of an organization are outside the purview of the CC Act. * Atmastco Ltd. v. Mandeep Kalra [2024:DHC:4830] "23. All said and done, evidently the CC Act has been enacted for the purpose of providing an efficacious remedy for speedy disposal of high valued commercia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are as under: "15. In this backdrop, the mere presence of ancillary business-related clauses such as confidentiality, intellectual property assignment, or non- compete obligations does not metamorphose an employment contract, which is fundamentally a contract of personal service, into a commercial arrangement. This position has been affirmed by various High Courts. In Ekanek Networks Pvt. Ltd., this Court considered whether breaches of an employment agreement containing detailed terms on remuneration, non- compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality, IP assignment, and termination could be treated as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the CC Act. The Court held that the expression "provision of services" in the s....