Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
M/S Swaraj Industrial And Domestic ... vs Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A & Anr on 13 November, 2017
The order rejecting the aforesaid application has now
merged into the substantive order dated 21st October, 2019. Thus, it emerges
that the order dated 21st October, 2019 and the one impugned in the present
appeal dated 13th February, 2020 are orders passed under Order VIII Rule 1
&10 and Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC. Neither of these provisions are
enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC and are thus, excluded from the
scope of appeals provided for in the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act. The
FAO(OS)(COMM) 126/2020 Page 6 of 10
scope of intra-court appeals under Section 13(1) of the Act has been
elaborated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in HPL (India) Limited
and Ors. v. QRG Enterprises and Ors.1 which was followed subsequently
by Division Benches in Samsung Leasing Ltd. and Ors. v. Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd. and Ors.2 and Swaraj Industrial and Domestic
Appliances (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. and Ors.3.
The Appellants have not been able to cross the barrier of maintainability as
the same is governed by Section 13(1) of the Act.
Oku Tech Private Limited vs Sangeet Agarwal & Ors. on 11 August, 2016
13. We are also of the view that the request of the Appellants cannot be
allowed, having regard to the fact that the suit deals with a commercial
dispute, which is governed by the Act. If the prayer is allowed, and the
Appellants are permitted to file a written statement at this stage, it would
grossly delay the proceedings in the suit that have advanced substantially.
The various provisions of the Act have been designed to ensure speedy
resolution of high value commercial disputes. It is no longer res integra that
the time period for filing the written statement for commercial suits is
mandatory as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Oku Tech Private Limited v. Sangeet Agarwal and Others4 which has been
cited with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s SCG Contracts
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and
Others5. The intention of the legislature while drafting the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 was to lay down the procedure which would exponentially
expedite the disposal of a commercial suit. Thus, timelines in commercial
suits, should be considered sacrosanct and mandatory and must be given due
weightage. Despite opportunity granted, Appellants have chosen not to bring
the written statement on record. There is no just or plausible reason for us to
exercise our jurisdiction under Section 13(1) of the Act. Thus, keeping in
view the objects and purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts
Act and the fast track procedure provided under the Act, there is no reason
4
2016 SCCOnline Del 6601
5
(2019) 12 SCC 210
FAO(OS)(COMM) 126/2020 Page 9 of 10
for us to countenance the casual and the lackadaisical approach exhibited by
the Appellants.
M/S Scg Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ks Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2019
13. We are also of the view that the request of the Appellants cannot be
allowed, having regard to the fact that the suit deals with a commercial
dispute, which is governed by the Act. If the prayer is allowed, and the
Appellants are permitted to file a written statement at this stage, it would
grossly delay the proceedings in the suit that have advanced substantially.
The various provisions of the Act have been designed to ensure speedy
resolution of high value commercial disputes. It is no longer res integra that
the time period for filing the written statement for commercial suits is
mandatory as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Oku Tech Private Limited v. Sangeet Agarwal and Others4 which has been
cited with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s SCG Contracts
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and
Others5. The intention of the legislature while drafting the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 was to lay down the procedure which would exponentially
expedite the disposal of a commercial suit. Thus, timelines in commercial
suits, should be considered sacrosanct and mandatory and must be given due
weightage. Despite opportunity granted, Appellants have chosen not to bring
the written statement on record. There is no just or plausible reason for us to
exercise our jurisdiction under Section 13(1) of the Act. Thus, keeping in
view the objects and purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts
Act and the fast track procedure provided under the Act, there is no reason
4
2016 SCCOnline Del 6601
5
(2019) 12 SCC 210
FAO(OS)(COMM) 126/2020 Page 9 of 10
for us to countenance the casual and the lackadaisical approach exhibited by
the Appellants.
Hpl (India) Limited & Ors vs Qrg Enterprises And Another on 14 February, 2017
Para 30 of HPL (India)
supra clearly states that, "In other words, only an order specified under
Order XLIII Rule 1 would be appealable and, read with the provisions of
Section 104, no other order would be an appealable order under the CPC.
In this backdrop, the proviso to Section 13(1) makes it abundantly clear that
an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a
Commercial Court that are 'specifically enumerated' under Order XLIII of
the CPC, as amended by the said Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Clearly, in our view, this restricts the appealable
orders to only those orders which are specifically enumerated in Order
XLIII." Thus, the present appeal is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr on 21 July, 2017
The order rejecting the aforesaid application has now
merged into the substantive order dated 21st October, 2019. Thus, it emerges
that the order dated 21st October, 2019 and the one impugned in the present
appeal dated 13th February, 2020 are orders passed under Order VIII Rule 1
&10 and Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC. Neither of these provisions are
enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC and are thus, excluded from the
scope of appeals provided for in the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act. The
FAO(OS)(COMM) 126/2020 Page 6 of 10
scope of intra-court appeals under Section 13(1) of the Act has been
elaborated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in HPL (India) Limited
and Ors. v. QRG Enterprises and Ors.1 which was followed subsequently
by Division Benches in Samsung Leasing Ltd. and Ors. v. Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd. and Ors.2 and Swaraj Industrial and Domestic
Appliances (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. and Ors.3.
The Appellants have not been able to cross the barrier of maintainability as
the same is governed by Section 13(1) of the Act.
1