ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. Mr. Vinod Khurana, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the dispute raised in this suit is a 'commercial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 ('Act'). The plaint reveals that the main grievance of the Plaintiff is against the Defendant's alleged circulation of notices through correspondence and other means which according to the Plaintiff constitutes "tortuous interference' in the contractual business of the Plaintiff and for which the Plaintiff inter alia, seeks permanent injunction and damages in the sum of Rs. 1 crore. 2. Mr. Khurana referred to the long title of the Act which reads as under: "An act to provide for the constitution of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." 3. Mr. Khurana urged that even if it might not be a proper 'commercial dispute' as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, it would be a matter "connected therewith or incidental thereto". 4. The expression 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act has an exhaustive definition and lists out twenty-two types of commercial disputes. The attempt by Mr. Khurana was to categorise the present suit as one pertaining to an 'ordinary transaction' of merchants and traders as stated in Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act. 5. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. The Court does not view the grievance of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint as falling within the definition of an 'ordinary transaction' of a merchant or trader. The Plaintiff complains of the circulation of notices by the Defendants which according to the Plaintiff constitutes a tortuous interference with its business. This cannot also be viewed as a matter connected with or incidental to an ordinary transaction of a merchant or trader. Consequently, the Court declines the prayer of the Plaintiff to treat the present suit as a commercial suit. With the valuation of the suit being Rs. 1 crore, the present suit is transferred to the Court of appropriate jurisdiction in terms of Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act 2015 and Office Order dated 24th November 2015 as amended by the Office Order dated 24th July 2016 of the High Court of Delhi. With the valuation of the suit being Rs. 1 crore, the present suit is transferred to the Court of appropriate jurisdiction in terms of Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act 2015 and Office Order dated 24th November 2015 as amended by the Office Order dated 24th July 2016 of the High Court of Delhi. The next date of 23rd September 2016 is cancelled.