JUDGMENT :

(R. Subramanian, J.)

(PRAYER in OSA.No.26 of 2020: Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2019 made in A.No.729 of 2019 in A.No.4758 of 2018 in C.S.No.441 of 2018 by allowing the appeal.)

(PRAYER in OSA.No.27 of 2020: Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2019 made in A.No.10178 of 2018 in A.No.4758 of 2018 in C.S.No.441 of 2018 by allowing the appeal.)

(PRAYER in OSA.No.28 of 2020: Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 11.11.2019 made in A.No.8043 of 2018 and consequently revoke the leave to sue granted in A.No.4758 of 2018 on 02.07.2018 in C.S.No.441 of 2018.)

(PRAYER in OSA.No.29 of 2020: Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 11.11.2019 in A.No.8040 of 2018 and consequently revoke the leave to sue grant in A.No.4758 of 2018 on 02.07.2018 in C.S.No.441 of 2018.)

1. Finding itself unable to agree with the pronouncement of the Division Bench in Hindustan Unilever Limited Ponds House v. S.Shanthi, reported in 2021 (6) CTC 1, another Division Bench of this Court had referred the following questions for determination by the Full Bench:

(i) Whether an order passed by this Court, on its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, exercising powers under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for High Court of Madras, granting leave to any applicant to institute suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, can be said to be an order passed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? and further.

(ii) Whether an order passed by this Court refusing to revoke leave granted to any applicant as referred in (i) above, can be said to be an order passed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this reference are as follows:

The first respondent in all these Appeals instituted a suit against the appellants, four in number, seeking a money decree for Rs.12,39,749.55 US Dollars at the exchange rate on the date of the judgment payable towards the 17 unpaid Bills, to pay interest of Rs.18,46,665.39 calculated at 12% per annum on the said bills and to pay interest at 12% per annum on 12,39,749.55 US Dollars from the date of plaint till date of realisation.

2.1 The said suit was filed during June 2018 along with an application seeking leave to file the suit in this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Leave was granted by this Court on 02.07.2018. Upon service, the defendants in the suit/the appellants herein filed independent Applications in Application Nos.10178 of 2018, 726 of 2019, 8040 and 8043 of 2018 seeking revocation of the leave on various grounds. The Commercial Division which heard the Revocation Applications, dismissed the Applications by a common order dated 11.11.2019. Aggrieved, the defendants 1 to 4 filed independent Appeals in OSA Nos.26 to 29 of 2020.

2.2. The Appeals came up for hearing before the Commercial Appellate Division of this Court where a doubt was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Commercial Appellate Division to hear these Appeals. Since the Commercial Appellate Division, prima facie felt that the Appeals may have to go before the Court having the roaster, since it did not consider it to be a Commercial Court matter at present, a direction was issued on 25.11.2021 directing the Appeals to be listed before the Bench having the roaster for hearing Appeals again