Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J.
Dr. Sethulakshmi V. R. D/o Ramachandran V.K - Appellant
Vs.
Canara Bank, Kottayam - Respondent
CRP No. 118 Of 2025
Decided On : 22-05-2025
(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 8 and 13 - Civil Revision Petition (CRP) maintainability - The court examined whether a CRP is maintainable against a final order of the Commercial Appellate Authority, given the specific bars under the Act. The court found that while Section 13(2) bars appeals, Section 8 only restricts revisions against interlocutory orders, allowing for a CRP under Section 115 of CPC against final judgments. (Paras 5, 8, 38, 40)
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - The court emphasized that the legislature's intent must be respected, and the words of the statute should be given their plain meaning. The court noted that the absence of a specific bar against CRPs for final orders indicates that such petitions are permissible. (Paras 14, 41)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a CRP against the judgment of the Commercial Appellate Authority, which had set aside the Commercial Court's decree. The petitioner argued that no appeal was available under the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the filing of the CRP.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that both a CRP under Section 115 of CPC and a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution are maintainable against the appellate authority's order, affirming the right to access justice despite the absence of a second appeal.
Issues: The primary issue was whether a CRP is maintainable against a final order of the Commercial Appellate Authority under the Commercial Courts Act, considering the specific provisions barring appeals and revisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the specific bar against interlocutory orders does not extend to final judgments, allowing for a CRP under Section 115 of CPC. The court emphasized the importance of providing remedies to aggrieved parties to ensure access to justice.
Result: The question with respect to maintainability is answered in positive.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1) |
| 2. clarification on the maintainability of the crp. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. discussion on the appeal process and relevant provisions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments regarding the interpretation of the commercial courts act. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. interpretation principles and legislative intent. (Para 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. discussion on the applicability of cpc provisions. (Para 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 7. counterarguments regarding the interpretation of the act. (Para 26 , 28 , 30) |
| 8. final arguments on the conflict between statutes. (Para 32 , 34) |
| 9. court's analysis on maintainability of crp. (Para 35 , 37 , 38) |
| 10. conclusion on available remedies for aggrieved parties. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 11. final remarks and appreciation of counsel's efforts. (Para 43 , 45 , 46) |
ORDER :
P.M.MANOJ, J.
The unnumbered Civil Revision Petition was posted before the Court on noting defect by the Registry. The defect noted was as follows:
“CRP is filed to call for records leading to the order passed by the Commercial Appellate Authority, Kottayam in Commercial Appeal No.3/2023 dated 12.07.2024 and set aside the same by upholding the judgment of Commercial Court, Pala in CS 85/2022 dated 09.06.2023 and thereby allow the revision petition.
Defect was noted to clarify whether the CRP is proper remedy.”
2. It was answered by the counsel as follows:
“There is no appealable provision against the judgment of Commercial Appellate Authority as per the Commercial Court Act. Therefore as per the judgment in Nafeesa and another v. Deputy Collector, [2013 (4) KHC 868]. The only provision available is to file a CRP.”
3. This is the circumstance under which the case was posted before the Bench as unnumbered CRP. On considering the primary stage, this court was also of the opinion that CRP was not maintainable. However, upon the decision in Ayub Khan P.A. v. State of Kerala and Another [2012 (1) KHC 615], being pointed out, the Registry was directed to number the CRP, since the question of maintainability is to be decided by the Court and not by the Registry. For that purpose, a detailed hearing is required. Therefore, when the matter was posted again, Adv.G.Krishnakumar was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case on 02.04.2024.
4. The matter was finally considered for orders with respect to maintainability of CRP against a judgment and decree by the Commercial Appellate Authority.
5. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent herein has preferred a Commercial Appeal No.3/2023 against the judgment and decree in Commercial Suit No.85/2022 of the Commercial Court, Pala before the Commercial Appellate Authority, Kottayam. Though the suit was dismissed in favour of the revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2023 in CS No.85/2022. This is the circumstance in which the Civil Revision was preferred as there is a specific bar under Sec.13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act 2015’) with respect to a second appeal. Whereas Sec.8 of the Act 2015 bars any revision or petition against interlocutory orders. Since this Court considered the issue with respect to filing of an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority in a reported decision in State of Kerala and others v. Dr.Praveen Kumar T.K. [2024 (1) KHC 241] found that there is no scope for a second appeal. Therefore, according to the petitioner, what is barred under the provision is an appeal under Sec.13 and any civil revision or petition under Sec.8 of the Act 2015 against interlocutory orders. Whereas there is no specific bar for Civil Revision Petition against judgment of Commercial Appellate Authority. Hence, the remedy available is a civil revision under section 115 of CPC.
6. The learned Amicus curiae also admitted that Sec.13(2) of the Act 2015 specifically bars any appeal otherwise than under Sec.13(1) of the Act 2015 including letterspatent appeal before t
A Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against a final order of the Commercial Appellate Authority under Section 115 of CPC, despite the bars on appeals and revisions in the Commercial Courts Act.
The court ruled that an ex-parte order is interlocutory and barred from revision under the Commercial Courts Act, but the petitioner retains the right to participate in ongoing proceedings.
The bar against Civil Revision Applications from interlocutory orders under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act is enforceable, and the requirement for pre-institution mediation was not applicable....
No intra-court appeal under Commercial Courts Act lies against Single Judge order on Patents Act appeal due to CPC Section 100A bar, Controller possessing Civil Court trappings as quasi-judicial auth....
The court ruled that a development agreement for agricultural land falls under Article 6 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, requiring payment of deficit stamp duty for admissibility, and that the order is ....
Against an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, neither an appeal nor revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies.
The main legal principle established is the mandatory nature of pre-litigation mediation and the requirement for the suit to contemplate urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Cour....
Duty is cast on the Court to see that interest of those on whose behalf suit is permitted to be instituted is safeguarded.
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
