Manjeet Plastic Industries vs Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Authority Punjab

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 18812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J
Manjeet Plastic Industries – Appellant
Versus
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Authority Punjab – Respondent
FAO-6574-2023 | FAO-89-2024

Important Points

Orders passed by an Additional District Judge designated as a 'Commercial Court' via statutory notification in respect of commercial disputes are deemed to be orders of a Commercial Court for the purpose of appeal, regardless of the omission of the phrase 'Commercial Court case' on the order.

Subject

Arbitration and Commercial Law - Jurisdiction of Commercial Courts

Act Referred

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015: S.3, S.3-A, S.5, S.6, S.10, S.13, S.15
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: S.34, S.37
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.XLIII, S.16, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20

Headnote

(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 3, 3A, 10, 13, and 15 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Disputes regarding sale of goods or provision of services constitute commercial disputes - Territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary value - When an Additional District Judge is designated as a Commercial Court via state notification, orders passed in commercial disputes are de jure orders of a Commercial Court, irrespective of whether the order explicitly mentions its capacity as a Commercial Court.

Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed against the orders of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents raised preliminary objections, contending that the appeals were not maintainable before a Single Bench of the High Court because the ADJ, acting as a designated Commercial Court under the 2015 Act notification, had decided the cases. The appellants argued that the orders did not explicitly state they were passed in the capacity of a Commercial Court.

Issues: Whether the appeals against orders passed by an ADJ (designated as a Commercial Court under a notification) are maintainable before a Single Bench of the High Court, or must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division (Division Bench).

Findings of Court:
The Court held that once a notification designates an ADJ as a Commercial Court, an order passed by that judge in a commercial dispute is deemed to be an order of a Commercial Court, regardless of the absence of an explicit mention in the order itself. Estoppel does not apply against the law regarding the constitution of courts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a judge is de jure acting as a Commercial Court via valid statutory notification, the technical omission of a label on the judgment does not divest the court of its statutory identity, and therefore, appeals must adhere to the appellate procedures prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Result: Appeals returned to the Registry to be placed before the Commercial Appellate Division.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avi Singh, Jaskaranjeet Singh Sibia, Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Raghav Gulati, Varun Sharma, Rahul Kesar
For the Respondents: Shekhar Verma, Komal Bishnoi, Rahul Chadha

Table of Content
1. appellees challenge the maintainability of appeals before a single bench, citing commercial courts act notification. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. court determines that statutory designation as a commercial court is de jure and omission of status tag on judgment is non-fatal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. appeals are not maintainable before single bench and must be moved to commercial appellate division. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

M/S MANJEET PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

......Appellant

versus

SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN AUTHORITY

PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

......Respondents

FAO-89-2024 (O&M)

KHADIM INDIA LIMITED

.....Appellant

versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL SCHOOL EDUCATION CUM STATE

PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANR

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:- Mr. Avi Singh, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) with

Mr. Jaskaranjeet Singh Sibia, Advocate for the appellant(s)

in FAO-6574-2023.

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate,

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Rahul Kesar, Advocate for the appellant(s)

in FAO-89-2024.

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate,

Ms. Komal Bishnoi, Advocate,

Mr. Rahul Chadha, Advocate for the respondent No.1

in both the appeals.

Service of respondent No.2 in both cases was ordered to be dispensed with by this Court vide separate orders dated 10.04.2024.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. Both the appeals are being taken up together for final disposal with the consent of all the learned counsel for the parties, as the issue involved in both the appeals is same.

2. The present appeals have been filed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the applications filed by the respondent(s) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) were erroneously allowed with a further prayer for restoration of the original awards dated 14.01.2022 and 27.06.2022.

3. Preliminary objections have been taken by learned counsel for the respondent(s) with regard to the maintainability of the present appeals on the ground that the present appeals against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are not maintainable because the same could have only been filed before the Commercial Appellate Division under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, while substantiating his arguments regarding maintainability, submitted that the State of Punjab issued a notification dated 14.06.2019 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Section 3-A of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, which was issued in due consultation with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and constituted the courts of Additional District Judges- I, II and III of all the districts in the State of Punjab (except Sessions Division Ludhiana) were designated as Commercial Courts to decide the cases of the specified value of more than Rs.50 lakhs within their respective territorial jurisdictions. He submitted that by virtue of aforesaid notification issued by the State of Punjab in the year 2019, the objections under Section 34 of the Act in the present cases were filed in the year 2022, i.e., after the issuance of the notification, and were decided on 16.08.2023. The value of the subject matter was more than Rs. 50,00,000/- and therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid notification, the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), who decided the objections also being designated as Additional District Judge-II, decided the objections as a Commercial Court and once the objections have been decided by a Commercial Court, the only remedy available with appellants is to file an appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division, which lies before a Division Bench of this Cou