Case at a Glance
A father paid ₹3 lakh as advance to book ‘The Florence by Kohli’ for his daughter’s wedding on 1 May 2021; the wedding was cancelled because of COVID-19 and the venue company refused a refund. His recovery suit was filed in the Commercial Court, which, at the final-arguments stage, took the prima facie view that the dispute was not commercial. The Delhi High Court agreed that booking a venue for a marriage is a personal, not a business, purpose and so does not fall within Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Rather than send him back to square one, it used its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the suit to a Civil Court, to be heard finally from the stage it had reached.
The petitioner paid ₹3,00,000 as an advance to Kohli Tents Pvt. Ltd. to book the venue ‘The Florence by Kohli’ for his daughter’s marriage, scheduled for 1 May 2021. The wedding was cancelled because of the first COVID-19 wave, and the company declined to refund the advance. He filed a suit before the Commercial Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, under Section 6 read with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking recovery of ₹5,26,000 with interest against the company, its directors and the venue manager.
Issues were framed on 12 November 2024 on limitation, mis-joinder, cause of action and entitlement; none concerned the nature of the dispute. After the defendants’ application to examine additional witnesses was dismissed, the Commercial Court, during final arguments and without any submission from the defendants, recorded a prima facie view that the dispute was not commercial and “has to be tried by Consumer Court or Civil Court.” The father challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that no maintainability issue had been framed, that it could not be raised at the final stage, and that venue services fell within Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Act.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a suit for refund of an advance paid to book a wedding venue a ‘commercial dispute’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and if not, what should happen to a suit that has already reached final arguments?
A commercial seller does not make a personal booking commercial
Justice Anish Dayal applied the Division Bench decision in Chand Mehra v. British Airways PLC, (2025) 09 DEL CK 1533, which held that a contract for services is a commercial dispute only where it involves an element of commerce, trade or business, and the Supreme Court’s test in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers, (2019) 11 SC CK 0039, which looks to the dominant purpose of the transaction rather than the identity of the purchaser or its value. Relying also on Meena Vohra v. Master Hosts (P) Ltd., (2025) 03 DEL CK 1081, which treated a personal loan as non-commercial, the Court held that booking a venue for a daughter’s marriage is a personal purpose. Although the venue provider was a commercial entity, the “purchaser of the services is not a commercial entity but had booked the venue for personal purpose”, and the transaction was not business-to-business.
On the consequence, the Court reasoned that returning the plaint or remanding the matter, when the suit had reached the stage of final arguments, would be unnecessary and contrary to the interests of justice. Relying on Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Ltd., (2024) 01 DEL CK 4032 for the High Court’s power to transfer such a suit, it invoked Section 24 CPC, read with sub-section (1)(b)(ii) and sub-section (5), to transfer the suit to a civil court of competent jurisdiction, to be heard finally from the stage it had reached. Both counsel consented to this course.
What the Court Actually Held
- A contract for services is a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act only if it has an element of commerce, trade or business.
- Booking a wedding venue for one’s daughter’s marriage is a personal purpose; the fact that the service provider is a commercial entity does not make the dispute commercial.
- The suit is transferred under Section 24 CPC from the Commercial Court to a Civil Court, to be heard finally from the stage it has reached, instead of being returned or remanded.
- The matter was listed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, on 7 October 2026 to designate the Civil Court; the petition is disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many families who lost wedding bookings to COVID-19 are still litigating refunds; this ruling tells them which forum is appropriate.
- It applies the ‘element of commerce’ test from Chand Mehra to everyday service contracts between businesses and individuals.
- It saves litigants years of delay by transferring a suit at the final stage rather than making them start afresh.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families Seeking Refunds
- A refund claim for a wedding venue booked for personal purposes is not a commercial dispute and need not go to the Commercial Court.
- The trial court here also mentioned the Consumer Court as an option; choose the forum carefully before filing.
- If you have already filed in the wrong forum, the High Court can transfer the case rather than leave you to begin again.
For Counsel
- Test the dominant purpose of the transaction from the purchaser’s side, as Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta requires, before invoking the Commercial Courts Act.
- Where a suit at an advanced stage is found to be in the wrong forum, seek transfer under Section 24 CPC from the High Court, relying on Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings.
- The objection here was taken by the court itself at final arguments; anticipate jurisdictional questions even if no issue has been framed.
Key Takeaways
- A personal wedding booking is not a commercial transaction, even with a commercial venue.
- The ‘element of commerce, trade or business’ test governs service contracts under the Commercial Courts Act.
- The suit was transferred to a Civil Court under Section 24 CPC and will continue from the final stage.
- The merits of the refund claim remain to be decided.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a dispute over a wedding venue refund a commercial dispute?
According to this Delhi High Court ruling, no. Booking a venue for a daughter’s marriage was held to be a personal purpose, and a services contract is commercial only where it has an element of commerce, trade or business.
What happens if such a suit was filed in the Commercial Court?
Here the High Court transferred it under Section 24 CPC to a Civil Court, to be heard finally from the stage it had reached, because the suit was already at final arguments and a remand would be against the interests of justice.
Did the father get his refund?
The High Court did not decide the refund claim. It only decided the forum question; the merits will be decided by the designated Civil Court.
Conclusion
The judgment keeps the Commercial Courts Act within its purpose: disputes arising out of trade and business. A family’s wedding booking, even with a large commercial venue, belongs in the ordinary civil courts, and the Court ensured the father did not lose years of litigation over the mistake of forum.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a refund or service-deficiency suit against a business, ask whether your own purpose was commercial; if it was personal, the Commercial Court is the wrong forum.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com