Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)

Black Diamond Trackparts Private ... vs Black Diamond Motors Private Limited on 27 August, 2021

In light of the judgments of Surya Dev Rai supra and Black Diamond supra, this is not a case where the commercial court has acted without jurisdiction or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. Nor is there any manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as liberty has been granted to it by the commercial court to raise the issue of jurisdiction at an appropriate stage.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 12 - A Bansal - Full Document

M/S Deep Industries Ltd. vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. on 28 November, 2019

30. We are of the view that once the Commercial Courts Act has expressly barred the remedy of a revision application under Section 115 of the CPC, with respect to the suits within its ambit, the purpose thereof cannot be permitted to be defeated by opening up Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1016/2021 Page 4 of 7 By:MAMTA ARYA Signing Date:17.11.2021 14:57:56 the gates of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope and ambit of a petition under Article 227 is much wider than the scope and ambit of a revision application under Section 115 of the CPC; whatever can be done in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the CPC, can also be done in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Allowing petitions under Article 227 to be preferred even against orders against which a revision application under Section 115 CPC would have been maintainable but for the bar of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, would nullify the legislative mandate of the Commercial Courts Act. Recently, in Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (2020) 15 SCC 706, in the context of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with respect to orders in an appeal against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, it was held that if petitions under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under the Arbitration Act were entertained, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. It was observed that though Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by an non-obstante Clause 5 of the Arbitration Act but what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing First Appeals under the Arbitration Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same taking into account the statutory policy, so that interference is restricted to orders which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction. Thus, though we are of the view that gates of Article 227 ought not to be opened with respect to orders in commercial suits at the level of the District Judge against which a revision application under CPC was maintainable but which remedy has been taken away by the Commercial Courts Act, but abiding by the judgments aforesaid, hold that it cannot be said to be the law that jurisdiction under Article 227 is completely barred. However the said jurisdiction is to be exercised very sparingly and more sparingly with respect to orders in such suits which under the CPC were revisable and which remedy has been taken away by a subsequent legislation i.e. the Commercial Courts Act, and ensuring that such exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court does not negate the legislative intent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1016/2021 Page 5 of 7 By:MAMTA ARYA Signing Date:17.11.2021 14:57:56 and purpose behind the Commercial Courts Act and does not come in the way of expeditious disposal of commercial suits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 133 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next