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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
NBCC (India) Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(OS) 23 of 2020 & CM Appls. 7970-7972 of 2020, FAO(OS) (COMM) 19 of 2020, CM Appl. 2788 of 2020 & CM Appl. 7262 of 2021 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 16 of 2020, CM Appl. 2235 of 2020 & CM Appl. 2237 of 2020
Decided On : 10-09-2021




Appeals against non-enumerated orders under the Commercial Courts Act are not maintainable, reinforcing adherence to Supreme Court precedent and emphasizing efficient judicial processes in commercial disputes.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Appeals filed against orders passed by a Single Judge in commercial causes - The court clarifies that appeals against non-enumerated orders under Order XLIII of CPC are not maintainable - Supreme Court's interpretation is critical for appeal rights in commercial matters. (Paras 5, 14, 13)

(B) Jurisdiction and Interpretation - The court distinguishes the enabling nature of Section 13(1A) from limiting provisions, emphasizing that the right to appeal should not be unduly restricted. (Paras 6, 11)

(C) Precedent and Legal Consistency - The decision rejects the prior view in D & H India Ltd. regard the interpretative scope of Section 13, affirming adherence to Supreme Court's guidance. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Three commercial appeals were filed challenging orders from the learned Single Judge; the issues included closure of plaintiff’s replication rights and disallowance of limitation issues.

Findings of Court:
Appeals deemed not maintainable; none of the orders were appealable under the provisions of the CPC as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

Issues: Whether the appeals against specific orders were maintainable as per the Commercial Courts Act and its interpretation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the efficient aim of the Commercial Courts Act while adhering to the Supreme Court's precedent, emphasizing that appellate jurisdiction should not extend beyond stipulated conditions.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals against prior orders. (Para 2)
2. description of section 13 of the commercial courts act. (Para 3)
3. court's analysis on maintainability of appeals. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. interpretation of appeal rights under section 13. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. decision on maintainability and dismissal of appeals. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (Oral)--In respect of Item 1, the Registry is directed to register the appeal as FAO (OS)(COMM) No. 23/2020 instead of FAO(OS) No. 23/2020.

2. These three commercial appeals have been preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 ( COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT ) to assail the orders passed in the respective commercial causes by the learned Single Judge. The particulars of the impugned orders passed in these three appeals are as follows:

(I) FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 23/2020

The impugned order is dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in O.A. No. 81/2019 [CS(COMM) No. 1261/2018]. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Chamber Appeal against the order passed by the Joint Registrar, whereby the right of the plaintiff to file the replication as well as affidavit of admission/denial of documents was closed.

(II) FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 17/2020

The impugned order is dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CS(COMM) No. 1143/2018. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected three issues proposed by the defendant, including an issue on limitation. The appeal is preferred only qua the disallowance of the issue on limitation.

(III) FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 17/2020

The impugned order is dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in I.A. 7379/2019[CS(COMM) No. 513/2017]. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the application for amendment of the plaint.

3. Section 13 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , which creates the Right of Appeal reads as follows:

    "13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.--(1) 1 [Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order.

    (1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:

    Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).]

    (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act." (emphasis supplied)

4. In light of the provision contained in Section 13 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , since none of the impugned orders are specifically appealable under Order 43 CPC, we had required the parties to address us on the aspect of maintainability of the present appeals.

5. Learned counsels for the appellants placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in D & H India Ltd. vs Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd., [FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 237/2019] decided on 16.03.2020. The Division Bench in its decision, inter alia, in Para 21 held as follows:

    "21. On a plain reading, the proviso to Section 13 (1A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT is an enabling, rather than a disabling, provision. There is nothing, in the said proviso, which would seem to indicate that it dilutes t

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 Back to top