THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu BakhrU, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
TRINETRAMILAN PRODUCT PROTECTION SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
A.S. NARAYANAN – Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [commercial court] in I.A.No.12 in Commercial O.S.No.336/2022.
2. The appellant was arrayed as defendant in the said suit, and it had filed the said application (I.A.12) under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CPC], contending that the learned commercial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The said application was dismissed with costs by the impugned order.
3. The question to be considered at the threshold is whether an appeal against an order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is maintainable, in view of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 [CC Act].
4. At the outset, we would consider it apposite to set out Sub- section (1A) of Section 13 of the CC Act. The same is reproduced below.
"13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions –
**
(1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisd
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.