SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Satish Seth – Appellant
Versus
Indu Kapoor – Respondent


ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM No.9416/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

FAO (COMM) No.64/2021

3. This proceeding, given the nomenclature of 'FAO(COMM) ' impugns the order dated 16th January, 2021 of the Additional District Judge-03 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.6369/2018, of rejecting the objection of the appellants/defendants to the admission of the suit, on the ground of being barred by limitation.

4. The appeal has been preferred, invoking Section 13 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015.

5. We have enquired from the counsel for the appellants, whether not under Section 13 supra, appeals can be entertained only from orders of the Commercial Court and whether not such appeals can be only those which lie under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC, rejection of a plea under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is not appealable.

6. The counsel for the appellants has referred to Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited, 2016(9) SCC 524 to contend that as per the said dicta, an appeal under Section 13

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top