Delhi High Court
M/ S Sai World vs M / S R. G. Bio Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd on 22 April, 2025
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.04.2025
+ C.R.P. 236/2023 & CM APPL. 44308/2023
M/ S SAI WORLD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Debjani D. Purkayastha,
Advocate.
versus
M / S R. G. BIO COSMETIC PVT. LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sreejan Pankaj & Ms. Ritu,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. The present Petition seeks to challenge an interlocutory order dated
14.07.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Comm-03/SEC/Saket, Delhi
in CS(Comm) 449/2019 captioned M/s R.G. Bio Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s Sai World.
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent draws the attention of the
Court to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter
referred to as the “CC Act“]to submit that the present Petition is barred by
the provisions of Section 8 of the CC Act.
3. This Court agrees. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
[hereinafter referred to as the “CC Act“] sets out that no civil revision
petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order. It is apposite
to set out Section 8 of the CC Act below:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:26.04.2025 C.R.P. 236/2023 Page 1 of 3
13:41:21
“8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory
order.–Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be
entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court,
including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge,
subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal
against the decree of the Commercial Court.”
4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Black Diamond
Track Parts (P) Ltd. v. Black Diamond Motors (P) Ltd. 1 considered the
scope of Section 8 of the CC Act and it was held that CC Act expressly
bars the remedy of a revision petition filed under section 115 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant extract of the Black Diamond Track
Parts (P) Ltd. case is reproduced below:
“30. The reasoning in the aforesaid judgments gave rise to the question,
that since the remedy of revision under Section 115CPC though available
under the CPC against the order of dismissal of application under Order
7 Rule 10CPC, has been taken away under the Commercial Courts Act,
whether a petition under Article 227 would lie.
31. We are of the view that once the Commercial Courts Act has
expressly barred the remedy of a revision application under Section
115CPC, with respect to the suits within its ambit, the purpose thereof
cannot be permitted to be defeated by opening up 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 115CPC; whatever can be done in exercise of
powers under Section 115CPC, 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 115CPC 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 Ltd. v. ONGC [Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC(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 and Conciliation Act, 1996,
it was held that if petitions under Article 226 of 227 of the Constitution1
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3946Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:26.04.2025 C.R.P. 236/2023 Page 2 of 3
13:41:21
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 and purpose behind the Commercial Courts Act and
does not come in the way of expeditious disposal of commercial suits.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. In view of Section 8 of the CC Act, the present Petition is
dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law for redressal of his grievance.
6. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
APRIL 22, 2025/ ha
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:26.04.2025 C.R.P. 236/2023 Page 3 of 3
13:41:21
[ad_1]
Source link