JUDGMENT :

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

1. The prime question came up for consideration as to whether there is any retrospective operation of a notification issued under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Commercial Court to rupees ten lakhs from rupees three lakhs and whether the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court would stand ousted in view of the enhancement of specified value by the subsequent notification pertaining to a matter pending consideration. The objection raised was rejected by the Commercial Court under Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge.

2. Extensive arguments were made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Harikumar and relied on the latest decision of the Apex Court in Neena Aneja and Another vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 161. The Apex Court had elaborately considered the issue by referring to various other decisions on the point i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti Misra, (1975) 2 SCC 840 and Om Prakash Agarwal vs. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot, (2019) 14 SCC 526.

3. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to have an understanding with respect to the application of what actually amounts to “repeal” and “s