S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. These two appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. It is agreed by both sides that in these appeals, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, during the course of hearing of the Notices of Motion for interim reliefs, are impugned on several grounds.

2. When these matters were called out, the contesting respondents therein represented by Mr.Ravi Kadam-learned senior counsel and Mr.Venkatesh Dhond-learned senior counsel raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of these appeals. Our attention was invited to section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018. This amendment has been brought into force from 21st August, 2018, but effective from 3rd May, 2018.

3. It is urged by the learned senior counsel that the orders impugned in these appeals are not appealable within the meaning of sub-section (1A) of section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as amended. They would submit that these appeals be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone.

4. For considering the issue of maintainability of the appeals, it would be worthwhile reproducing certain relevant dates and events.

5. We would, for the sake of convenience, refer to the facts and circumstances in Appeal (L) No. 434 of 2018. That appeal has been brought by Trident Steel and Engineering Co. It is claiming to be a sole proprietorship of one Hitesh Kanungo. The sole proprietorship is original defendant no. 1 in Commercial IP Suit No. 1158 of 2018 on the file of this court. Respondent no. 1 to this appeal is the original plaintiff, whereas, respondent no. 2 is one Dharampal Singh.

6. Notice of Motion (L) No. 231 of 2018 was moved in this Commercial IP Suit and a copy of that notice of motion has been annexed to the appeal paper book. That is at page 50 of the paper book. However, the plaint as originally instituted has only one defendant-appellant before us. The reliefs claimed against the appellant-defendant are an injunction restraining the appellant from infringing or attempting to infringe the registered trademark VALLOUREC and which is depicted in the prayers with a registration number and the further restraint is against manufacturing, causing to manufacture, selling, offering for sale, marketing, import or export either directly or indirectly or in any manner dealing with the said trademarks or any other similar or identical marks likely to cause confusion in the minds of the customers. Prayer clause (b) is pertaining to the logo marks and prayer clause (c) seeks to restrain the goods being passed off as that of respondent no. 1-plaintiff. By prayer clause (d), appointment of receiver is sought and with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including a prayer to inspect the premises of the appellant before us, take stock of all infringed materials containing the marks of respondent no.1-plaintiff and thereafter, taking the same in custody. There are further incidental and ancillary prayers.

7. The prayers in the notice of motion are sought to be supported by the affidavit, duly affirmed on 11th January, 2018.

8. This notice of motion is pending in this court. The prayers in the same are founded on the pleadings, particularly that the first respondent-plaintiff is a company existing under the laws of France and the first defendant is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and carrying on business at the address mentioned in the cause title.

9. The background of the plaintiff is claimed to be world leader in premium tubular solutions primarily serving the energy markets (oil, gas and power generation). It claims to be an expert in manufacturing facilities, advanced research and development and a presence in more than 20 countries. It offers to its customers innovative global solutions to meet the energy challenges of