Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
Y.Sleebachen, S/O.Yohannan, Charuvila Veedu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Coml. Appeal Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2024
Decided on : 19-06-2024
COMMERCIAL COURTS - APPEALS UNDER COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT - Sections 13, 3, 3A, 1A, 21 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly focusing on the jurisdiction and appeal mechanisms established under Sections 13 and 3. It interpreted the amendments made by the 2018 Amendment Act, clarifying the distinction between appeals to Commercial Appellate Courts and the Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the procedural framework to ensure the speedy resolution of commercial disputes, as intended by the legislation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed Commercial Appeals against the judgments of the Commercial Court in suits for recovery of money and injunctions, originally filed in the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. The appeals were challenged on the basis of the maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly regarding the appropriate appellate forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeals should have been filed in the Commercial Appellate Court designated under Section 3A of the Commercial Courts Act, rather than the High Court. It emphasized the legislative intent for a structured appeal process to expedite commercial dispute resolutions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appeals against the Commercial Court's judgments should be filed in the High Court or the designated Commercial Appellate Court, considering the amendments to the Commercial Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendments to the Commercial Courts Act clearly delineate the jurisdiction of Commercial Appellate Courts and the Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts. Appeals from judgments of Commercial Courts below the level of a District Judge must be filed in the designated Commercial Appellate Courts, not the High Court.
Final Decision: The court ordered the return of the memorandum of appeal to the appellant's counsel for re-presentation before the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court at the District Judge level, affirming the need to follow the statutory framework established by the Commercial Courts Act.
ORDER :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These Commercial Appeals are filed by the plaintiff in Commercial Suit Nos.27 to 30 of 2023 on the file of the Commercial Court (Principal Sub Court), Palakkad, invoking the provisions under sub-section (1A) of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with its proviso. The suits against the respondents herein-defendants, for recovery of money, declaration and perpetual prohibitory injunction, were originally filed before the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad, which were numbered as O.S.Nos.738, 752, 753 and 778 of 2010. By the order in I.A.No.484 of 2013 joint trial was ordered, treating O.S.No.738 of 2010 as the leading case. Thereafter, by the order in I.A.No.1230 of 2023, those suits were converted as Commercial Suits and numbered as C.S.Nos.27 to 30 of 2023.
2. By a common judgment dated 25.08.2023 of the Commercial Court, C.S.Nos.27 of 2023 and 30 of 2023 were decreed and C.S.No.29 of 2023 and 28 of 2023 were decreed in part. The operative portion of the common judgment dated 25.08.2023 reads thus;
1) C.S. No.27 of 2023 is decreed.
a) The 1st defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.24,70,654/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation to the plaintiff.
b) It is declared that letter No.A3-843/01 dated 18.03.2008 issued by the 3rd defendant is arbitrary, unilateral, unreasonable, improper and unjust.
c) The defendants are prohibited from realising or taking any steps for realisation or enforcing recovery of any sum from the plaintiff on the basis of or in continuation of letter No.A3-843/01 dated 18.03.2008.
d) Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
2) C.S.No.30 of 2023 is decreed.
a) The 1st defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.49,56,812/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation to the plaintiff.
b) It is declared that letter No.A3-843/01 dated 18.03.2008 issued by the 3rd defendant is arbitrary, unilateral, unreasonable, improper and unjust.
c) The defendants are prohibited from realising or taking any steps for realisation or enforcing recovery of any sum from the plaintiff on the basis of or in continuation of letter No.A3-843/01 dated 18.03.2008.
d) The 1st defendant shall repay an amount of Rs.18,19,454/- which has been illegally recovered from the plaintiff on the basis of letter No.A3-843/01 dated 18.03.2008.
d) Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
3) C.S No. 29 of 2023 is decreed in part:
a) The 1st defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.34,61,828/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation to the plaintiff.
b) It is declared that G.O.(Rt)No.405/2009/WRD dated 07.04.2009 issued by the 3rd defendant is arbitrary, unilateral, improper and unjust. Unreasonable.
c) Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
4) C.S No. 28 of 2023 is decreed in part.
a) The 1st defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.29,64,033/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation to the plaintiff.
b) It is declared that G.O.(Rt.)No.405/2009/WRD dated 07.04.2009 issued by the 1st defendant is arbitrary, unilateral, unreasonable, improper and unjust.
c) Parties shall suffer their respective costs.”?
3. The judgment and decree in C.S.Nos.29 of 2023 and 28 of 2023 are under challenge in Coml.App.Nos.6 of 2024 and 7 of 2024, to the extent of granting interest only at the rate of 6% per annum for the decreed amount, instead of 12% per annum, and the direction to the parties to suffer their respective costs. The judgment and decree in C.S.Nos.30 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 are under challenge in Coml.App.Nos.8 of 2024 and 9 of 2024 to the above extent and also to the extent certain reliefs are declined.
4. There was a delay of 45 days in re-presenting the memorandum of Commercial Appeals after curing the defects noted by the Registry. That delay was condoned by the order dated 05.03.2024 in C.M.Application No.1 of 2024 in the respective appeals. Thereafter, the filing de
The proviso in Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act qualifies the generality of the main provision by providing an exception, and appeals from orders passed in commercial causes would lie only in ....
An appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable only against orders specified in Order XLIII of the CPC, and the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is....
Jurisdiction of Commercial Courts – All applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, other than international commercial arbitration,....
The judgment clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions under the Commercial Courts Act, particularly for intellectual property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction and classification of cases for challenges to International Commercial Arbitration Awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and ....
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....
The provisions of the CC Act prevail over the provisions of the A&C Act in relation to the jurisdiction and powers of Commercial Courts to deal with commercial disputes, including arbitral disputes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
