PRAMOD KUMAR vs M/S GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 07.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.01.2026 + RFA(COMM) 348/2024 PRAMOD KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Rai, Adv. versus M/S GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi and Mr. Kartikeya Misra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. The present Appeal, preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as „CC Act‟], challenges the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the Commercial Court dismissed the Appellant‟s suit for recovery, holding that the dispute did not qualify as a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the CC Act. 2. The Appellant is before this Court on a limited legal grievance i.e., that even if the Commercial Court correctly identified the dispute as non-commercial, it erred in law by dismissing the suit instead of returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN RFA(COMM) 348/2024 Signing Date:20.01.2026 18:26:11 Page 1 of 7 Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟] for presentation before the appropriate non-commercial forum. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. The Appellant was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the Respondent-company vide an appointment letter dated 31.08.1992. After successfully completing a one-year probation period, his services were confirmed. Over a long and dedicated tenure spanning more than 27 years, the Appellant rose through the ranks to the position of Deputy General Manager (Civil). 4. On 03.02.2020, the Appellant