Bombay High Court
Aihaana Achariya Sharma vs M/S. Maniyari Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its ... on 10 July, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:1141
2025:BHC-GOA:1141
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
Meena
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2024
Aihaana Achariya Sharma,
Daughter of Achariya Shankarlal Sharma,
44 years of age, Married,
Wife of Amit Hanumanthrao Kulkarni,
Indian National, Business,
Residing at 1101, Antarctica C-9,
Lodha Aqua, Opposite Western Express Highway,
Landmark hakur Mall, Mira Road East,
Mira Bhayander, Mira Road,
hane, Maharashtra 401107 ... Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Maniyari Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,
A company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956,
hr. its Director
Mr. Deepak Govindram Metha
Having its registered oice at
No. 6, Airport Road, Chicalim
Mormugao, Goa 403711.
2. Amit Hanumanthrao Kulkarni,
Son of Hanumanthrao B. Kulkarni,
Residing at 1101, Antarctica C-9,
Lodha Aqua, Opposite Western Express Highway,
Landmark hakur Mall, Mira Road East,
Mira Bhayander, Mira Road,
hane, Maharashtra 401107.
3 . Bharat Kulkarni,
Son of Mohan Kulkarni, Resident of Flat No.170621
Prestige Ferns Residency,
Harlur Road, Bangalore, 560102. ...Respondents
Mr Shivraj Gaonkar, Advocate with Mr Prabhav P. Sirvoicar, Advocate for the
Applicant.
1
10th July, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 22:41:27 :::
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
Mr Iftikhar Agha, Advocate with Mr Utkarsh Sawant, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES,J.
DATED : 10th July, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. his is a Civil Revision Application against an order dated
21.06.2024 passed by the Commercial Court/ the Court of the Civil Judge
Senior Division, Vasco in Criminal Suit No.4/2020/A, dismissing an
application at Exh.77 on its ile for rejection of the plaint on the ground
that the bar under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act (the Act)
would apply.
2. It was the case of the Petitioner/original Defendant in the suit that
the Plaintif, not having exhausted the pre-litigation requirement of
subjecting case to mediation under Section 12A of the Act, the plaint was
barred and ought to have been rejected.
3. he Respondent/original Plaintif raised a preliminary objection to
the maintainability of this revision application, arguing that the Petitioner
has an eicacious remedy of appeal provided under sub-Section 1 of
Section 13 of the Act. It was further submitted that on reading of Section
8 of the Act, the remedy of civil revision under the Code of Civil
Procedure has been speciically barred and the bar covers all interlocutory
orders passed during the course of the Commercial Suit. Reliance is placed
10th July, 2025
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union
of India and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC1129] and Judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in case of State of
Telangana and Anr v/s. M/s. Siddartha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in Civil
Revision Petition No.2623 of 2024.
4. here is no doubt that the sub-Section 1 of Section 13 provides an
alternate remedy of an appeal against the order, which includes an order
dismissing an application for rejection of a plaint. here is also a speciic
bar in terms of Section 8 of the Act for a Civil Revision to be iled against
any interlocutory order passed in the course of the suit. he present
revision application would therefore be barred.
5. he question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and
considering that the case of the Petitioners for rejection of plaint was that
there was a bar under Section 12A of the Act, this Court would exercise
its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
to interfere with the impugned order.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent that this
very question has been addressed by the Telangana High Court in State of
Telangana (supra) where the Telangana High Court has, considering the
strong language deployed in Section 8 of the Act, held that a Writ Court
would apply curbs on its exercise of powers under supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. he relevant paragraphs
where this argument is considered are quoted below:
10th July, 2025
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
"3. he other objection taken by the petitioners was on the
respondent circumventing the mandatory requirement of
pre-institution mediation under section 12A of he
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. he Trial Court relied on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and held that the
mandatory nature of section 12A of the Act would only be
made applicable on and from 20.08.2022 as held by Patil
Automation (supra) and that the Suit, having been iled on
30.11.2021, would hence be saved from the embargo.
13. It is settled law that the power of superintendence of a
High Court under Article 227 is not an un-fettered
jurisdiction where each and every order can be corrected or
interfered with. Apart from the broad outlines of lagrant
abuse, miscarriage of justice or dereliction of duty, the
High Court must be conscious of invoking the power
within limits. he limitation to such power would
particularly assume importance in the face of a special
statute like he Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which was
enacted for the speciic purpose of speedy resolution of
high value commercial disputes.
14. herefore, the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015
Act against iling of the Civil Revision Applications or
Petitions cannot be taken lightly. he wording of section 8
is strong and is meant to be given efect to,
notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force.
he justiication for the embargo can be found in section
13 of the 2015 Act which provides for Appeals from
decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions
to the next Court in the hierarchical pyramid of section
13(1A) of the 2015 Act.
10th July, 2025
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
15. he petitioners herein have no answer as to why they
have not iled an Appeal under section 13 (1) or (1A) of
the 2015 Act and they have instead chosen to ile a Civil
Revision Petition against the impugned order. One can
presume that the choice may have something to do with
the time limits under section 13(1) and (1A) of the 2015
Act, both of which provide for a period of 60 days from the
date of the judgment/order for iling of the Appeal.
16. More important however is that the bar contained in
section 8 of the 2015 Act speciically extends to "any
interlocutory order of a Commercial Court". In the present
case, the petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11
of he C.P.C. was rejected. he impugned order hence is
an interlocutory order. he situation would have been
reversed had the application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the C.P.C been allowed and the plaint been rejected
amounting to a decree as deined in section 2(2) of the
C.P.C."
7. For the reasons contained in the judgment, I would be in complete
agreement with the view taken in State of Telangana (supra) even on the
facts of the present case. For the very same reasons cited in State of
Telangana (supra), in my opinion, this would not be an appropriate case to
exercise the Article 227 jurisdiction of this Court. For this reason too, the
Revision Application must be dismissed as not maintainable.
8. he fact however remains that in the present case, the Revision
application has been iled on 04.07.2024, within the period of limitation
otherwise prescribed for exercising the right of appeal in sub section 1 of
10th July, 2025
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
Section 13 of the Act before the Commercial Appellate Court. An appeal
would lie before the District Court against the impugned order dated
21.06.2024 and such appeal would have been otherwise iled within a
period of limitation. Considering this position, the Applicant would
obviously have to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the District
Court along with an application for condonation of delay. Needless to
state, the Commercial Appellate Court may consider the time spent by the
Applicant before this Court pursuing the remedy of revision which is
otherwise obviously barred by Section 8 and sub-section 1 of Section 13 of
the Act.
9. he learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that considering
that the Petitioner resides in Mumbai, he would ile an appeal with an
application for condonation of delay before the Commercial Appellate
Court within the period of 10 days from today.
10. he petitioner has expressed apprehension that the Commercial
Court may proceed to hear the application iled by the
Respondents/Plaintifs, for passing a decree on admission, which hearing is
listed on 11.07.2025; the learned Advocate for the Respondent / Plaintif
submits that the parties would jointly ile an application before the
Commercial Court to defer the matter for a period of 10 days till the
Applicant iles an appeal.
11. he revision application is dismissed as being not maintainable in
view of the reasons stated above and with the observations made in the
10th July, 2025
285 CRA-19-2024.DOCX
preceding paragraphs.
12. No costs.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
10th July, 2025
