2026 Supreme(AP) 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, RAVI NATH TILHARI, BATTU DEVANAND, JJ.
3F Industries Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Transparent Technologies Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, Sri Ajit Apte & Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1847 of 2024, 1172 of 2022 and 1685, 1686, 1688 and 1689 of 2024
Decided On : 18-05-2026

The amendment to the 'Specified Value' in the commercial legislation is statutorily effective from its date of commencement without requiring a separate government notification. 'Specified Value' (dispute threshold) and 'Pecuniary Value' (court jurisdiction) are distinct legal concepts operating in different fields of the enactment.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 2(1)(i), 3, 3(1A), 3(3), 10, 12, 15, 21 - Amendment Act No. 28 of 2018 - Specified Value vs. Pecuniary Value - Interpretation of legislative intent - Amendment of 'Specified Value' to not less than three lakh rupees is effective by statute itself from 03.05.2018 without the requirement of a separate government notification - Distinction between 'Specified Value' (base limit for category of dispute) and 'Pecuniary Value' (jurisdiction of the court) - The power under Section 3(1A) to specify pecuniary value is a separate delegated legislative power requiring notification by the State Government to confer jurisdiction on courts below the level of District Judge, whereas Specified Value is a fixed threshold defined by the statute. (Paras 7-9, 18, 25-26)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Rules of construction - Use of 'or' versus 'and' - The word 'or' in Section 2(1)(i) is disjunctive, separating the base value from higher notified values - Legislative intent to reduce dispute threshold for speedy resolution - Courts should avoid an interpretation rendering amendments inoperative - Delegated legislation principles - Notification only required for enhancing base value above statutory floor. (Paras 10, 12, 26)

Facts of the case:
The court addressed a reference concerning whether the amendment to the definition of 'Specified Value' in the relevant commercial statute required a notification by the government to become effective, and whether a conflict existed between coordinate division benches regarding the operative date of this amendment. The matter involved the jurisdiction of regular civil courts versus commercial courts regarding the execution of awards and the threshold for commercial disputes following the 2018 amendment.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 itself effectively reduced the 'Specified Value' to three lakh rupees from the date of the amendment, 03.05.2018. It emphasized that 'Specified Value' and 'Pecuniary Value' are distinct concepts. A government notification is only required if the authorities intend to prescribe a value higher than the statutory base of three lakh rupees. The previous coordinate bench decision requiring a notification to activate the three lakh limit was found incorrect.

Issues: Whether the amendment to Section 2(1)(i) by Act 28 of 2018 automatically changes the 'Specified Value' without a government notification; whether 'Specified Value' and 'Pecuniary Value' are synonymous; and identifying the correct legal position between conflicting coordinate bench decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the legislature explicitly amended the statutory definition of 'Specified Value', which operates independently of the powers conferred by Section 3(1A). The non-obstante clause in Section 3(1A) relates to pecuniary jurisdiction and does not preclude the application of the 'Specified Value' threshold defined in Section 2(1)(i). Judicial duty is to give effect to the clear legislative intent to reduce the threshold for commercial disputes to facilitate speedier justice.

Result: Reference answered; held that the 'Specified Value' of not less than three lakh rupees is effective from 03.05.2018.

Table of Content
1. reference of legal questions concerning the interpretation of the commercial courts act 2015 amendments. (Para 2)
2. historical and legislative intent of the commercial courts act for speedy resolution of high-value commercial disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. distinction between 'specified value' as defined by act/parliament and the need for notification for upward adjustment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13)
4. differentiation between specified value (section 2(1)(i)) and pecuniary value (section 3(1a)) and the jurisdiction of special courts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final resolution of the referred questions regarding the operation of the amendment act 2018. (Para 26)
6. directions to the state government and high court for effective implementation of the amended provisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

Pursuant to the order dated 23-8-2024 of a Division Bench of this Court passed in C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 referring the following questions to a Larger Bench, this Full Bench is constituted to answer the questions formulated by the Division Bench for reference:

A. Whether the Amendment Act No.28 of 2018, in respect of Sections 2(1)(i) & 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by itself amends the ‘specified value’ as ‘not less than three lakhs rupees’, for the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court or it only enables the Central Government & the State Government(s) to do so, by notification specifying any amount, which shall not be less than three lakhs, as ‘specified value’, and it is only after such notification, the specified value shall stand amended ?

B. Whether the ‘specified value’ in Section 2(1)(i) in Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as substituted by Act 28 of 2018 to the effect “which shall not be less than Rupees three lakhs” in the place of “which shall not be less than Rupees One Crore” shall be operative and effective from

i) the date of amendment i.e., w.e.f. 03.05.2018; or

ii) on the date notified in the notification being issued by the Central Government under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act; or

iii) on the date notified in the notification being issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Government in consultation with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act ?

C. Which judgment, U.V. Satyanarayana or Bellam Balakrishna, lays down the law correctly ?

2. Brief overview of the facts leading to the lis in C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 before the learned Division Bench may be delineated as follows:

(a) An execution petition seeking attachment of property under Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC was filed in E.P.No.20 of 2024 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, to execute an arbitral award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The executing Court by an order dated 26-7-2024 ordered to post the said matter on 23-8-2024 to issue notice and attachment under Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC on payment of process. The said execution proceedings initiated before the executing Court which is the XI Additional District Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, are questioned before a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid civil revision petition on the ground that the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, which is a civil court and not a commercial court, has no jurisdiction to execute the award as it lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the said execution petition. It is contended before the Division Bench that only the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam alone is competent to entertain the execution petition and not by the Civil Court in view Sections 10 and 15 read with Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In support of the said contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of another Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. v. R.K. Mining Private Limited, CRP No.2183/2022, dt.12-9-2023. In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document