The Telangana High Court at Hyderabad, on 22 September 2025, put to rest an important question on the minimum value required for commercial suits. In a ruling that carries weight for companies battling over contracts and payments, a division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a plea by Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd., which had sought rejection of a case filed against it by Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Background
The dispute traces back to a commercial suit filed by Agilent Technologies before the Commercial Court in Ranga Reddy District. Agilent sought recovery of over ₹1.03 crore, comprising a principal of ₹44.53 lakh, accumulated interest, and damages. Janset Labs, the defendant in that suit, responded by asking for the plaint to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Their argument was that the case should not qualify as a "commercial suit" since, according to them, the value fell short of the earlier ₹1 crore threshold prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Janset's counsel, Mr. Sharad Sanghi, told the bench that splitting the claims into separate segments inflated the figure artificially and that, without such division, the value did not cross the required limit.
On the other side, counsel for Agilent, Mr. Istiaq Hussain, strongly maintained that the total claim clearly exceeded ₹1 crore and in any case the law, after the 2018 amendment, only required a minimum of ₹3 lakh to qualify as a commercial dispute.
Court's Observations
The bench first examined the law carefully, reading through Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act along with Section 12. Justice Bhattacharya, writing for the court, pointed out that the amendment of 2018 had already reduced the minimum threshold from ₹1 crore to ₹3 lakh.
"The argument that the amendment is not applicable in Telangana unless the State issues a notification is fallacious," the bench observed.
It explained that the Act itself made it clear that the notification power is reserved for the Central Government, and no separate State notification was required.
The judges also distinguished between two concepts - "specified value" and "pecuniary value." While the first determines whether a dispute qualifies as a commercial case at all, the second sets the financial jurisdiction of particular courts. Mixing up the two, the bench said, had led to unnecessary confusion in the submissions of Janset Labs.
In strong words, the order noted:
"The specified value forms the core of the commercial dispute for admission into the regime of the Act, while the pecuniary value fixes the competence of the Court."
The court further added that the prayers in Agilent's suit - recovery of dues, damages of ₹45 lakh, and interest - easily satisfied the requirement, even if one ignored the threshold issue.
Decision
Concluding the matter, the bench dismissed Janset Labs' Civil Revision Petition No.1932 of 2025. The judges upheld the order of the Commercial Court which had earlier refused to throw out the plaint.
"The reliefs claimed in the plaint satisfy the requirement of specified value as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the CRP," the bench declared.
With this, Janset Labs’ attempt to block the proceedings has failed, and the company will now have to defend itself in the trial on merits. The court, however, left the door open for the petitioner to raise all other points available under law during the course of the suit.
The ruling is being read as a clear reaffirmation that commercial disputes above ₹3 lakh fall under the Commercial Courts regime, regardless of whether states issue separate notifications.
Case Title: M/s. Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1932 of 2025