Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
Kapoor Imaging Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kodak Polychrome Graphics Asia Export Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
O.S.A. Nos. 235, 239 of 2020, C.M.P. Nos. 11819 and 11988 of 2020
Decided On : 15-03-2021
Original Side Appeals - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 – Commercial courts Act - Section 15 - whether the bar under Section 13 of the CCA would apply to interlocutory orders - whether the appeals are maintainable under Section 13 of the CCA and under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Held, words used in sub-section (3) to Section 15 of the CCA,. 2015, do not refer to a particular procedure, but refers to multiple procedures. The Legislature had used the words "those procedures" and not "the procedure" or "this procedure" singularly. Hence, the words in Section 15(3) of the CCA, 2015 cannot be construed to mean one singular event/happening during the life-span of a suit or application - it stands concluded that, no appeal can be filed against the interim order, even under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 104 and Order XLIII of the CPC. When the suit was filed, Amended Letters Patent, was applicable to the suit. Therefore, even if the plaintiff had a vested right under the Letters Patent to appeal against any order, such right was circumscribed under the restriction under Section 104 and Order XLIII of the CPC. Therefore, even under Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent, no appeal against an interlocutory order of a Single Judge, could be filed before a Division Bench of the High Court. Appeal could be filed only against orders specified in Order XLIII Rule 1(a) to (f) and Section 104 of CPC - Considering the fact that the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court and that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, neither falls under the categories set out under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, nor is it an order/Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act and therefore, on a combined reading of Section 8 of the CCA and proviso to Section 13(1-A) of the CCA, it is evident that the instant appeals are not maintainable even under the provisions of the CCA – Appeals Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
1. These Original Side Appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 11.08.2018 passed in Application Nos. 6383 and 6384 of 2017 in C.S. No. 220 of 2009, whereby, the learned Single Judge had dismissed both the applications filed by the appellant/plaintiff, one in Application No. 6384 of 2017 in C.S. No. 220 of 2009, for recalling P.W. 1 and to mark xerox copies of four documents, and another one, in Application No. 6383 of 2017 in C.S. No. 220 of 2009, to permit the applicant to file the affidavit of the applicant's Accounts Manager and Systems-in-charge under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit, as plaintiff (appellant herein) and defendants (respondents herein).
3. Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in these appeals are as follows:
(b) The defendants, after entering appearance, have filed their written statement in the month of January 2010. Thereafter, issues were framed on 27.06.2014. After framing of issues, the Court directed both sides to file affidavit of documents and give the list of witnesses within a period of three weeks and further two weeks' time was given for inspection of documents.
(c) The appellant/plaintiff filed affidavit of documents on 24.07.2014. Thereafter, the matter was posted before the learned Additional Master No. IV, High Court of Madras, for recording evidence. The trial commenced in the month of December 2016. Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Manager of the plaintiff-Company filed proof affidavit. On 05.12.2016, chief examination of P.W. 1 was recorded and Exs. P-1 to P-19 were marked. Again, on 08.12.2016, chief examination of P.W. 1 continued and exhibits upto Ex. P-24 were marked. Thereafter, the matter was posted for cross examination of P.W. 1.
(d) At this juncture, the respondents/defendants had filed application in A. No. 1243 of 2017 to eschew Exs. P-2, 6, 7, 10, 23, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 marked on the side of the plaintiff. In the affidavit filed in support of Application in A. No. 1243 of 2017, it is stated by the defendants that these documents were erroneously marked in the suit and the said documents could be classified as (i) photocopies of the documents (secondary evidence), (ii) incomplete documents or illegible and (iii) email correspondences not falling under the above said categories.
(e) The said application was opposed by the appellant/plaintiff by filing counter affidavit(s).
(f) The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on either side had partly allowed the said application in A. No. 1243 of 2017 on 30.06.2017. The concluding portion of the order reads as follows:
"13. In fine, the application is partly allowed and the documents marked as Ex. P6, Ex. P7 and Ex. P23, Ex. P10 Series (xiv) and Ex. P23 are ordered to be eschewed. With respect to other documents, Ex. P2, Ex. P5 series, Ex. P8 series (ii, iii, iv, vi, viii, ix), Ex. P9 series (i, ii, iii), Ex. P10 series (xiv), Ex. P11 series (v, vi, viii, xv) and Ex. P12 the learned Additional Master is directed to verify and substitute the same."
(g) The reason for ordering eschewing the above exhibits, namely Ex. P6, Ex. P7 and Ex. P23, Ex. P10 Series (xiv) and Ex. P23, by the learned Single Judge, was that, without an application to receive the secondary ev
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
