Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11; s.2(2) – Appellant filed Commercial Suit for recovery of Rs.2.5 Crores – Respondents sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement as contemplated under the CC Act – Plaint rejected by trial Court – Appellant filed appeal u/s.13(1A) – Dismissed by High Court as non-maintainable holding that an order rejecting the plaint does not fall within the ambit of Or.XLIII, CPC, and therefore, such a challenge could not be maintained u/s.13(1A) r/w the proviso – Interference with: Held: Impugned order quashed and set aside – An order rejecting the plaint u/Or.VII r.11 CPC decides the lis finally and is a decree within the meaning of s.2(2) CPC – A decree passed by a Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, the Commercial Division of a High Court would ordinarily be appealable before the High Court u/s.13(1A) r/w the applicable provisions of the CPC – The main provision of s.13(1A) contemplates appeals against ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’ of the Commercial Court to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court – The proviso, operating as an exception, must be construed harmoniously with the main provision and not in derogation thereof – Where the language of the main provision is plain and unambiguous, the proviso cannot be invoked to curtail or whittle down the scope of the principal enactment, save and except where such exclusion is clearly and expressly contemplated – The proviso merely restricts appeals against interlocutory orders to those specifically enumerated u/Or.XLIII CPC and s.37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Thus, only such interlocutory orders as are expressly specified therein would be amenable to an appeal under the proviso; orders not so enumerated would not fall within the restricted fold of the proviso – Appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court is maintainable, restored. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 21] Interpretation of Statutes – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Proviso to s.13(1A) – Interpretation – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 17]
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11 – Respondents contended that the view taken by the High Court holding the appeal to be not maintainable is supported by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works: Held: The ratio in Bank of India has no applicability to the present situation – The said case involved a challenge to an order rejecting application(s) u/Or.VII r.10 and Or.VII r.11(d) of the CPC, which order(s) are not enumerated u/Or.XLIII of the CPC – Thus, such an order would not be amenable to an appeal u/s.13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, and rather, can be challenged by filing a revision or a petition/application u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. [Para 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.