Delhi High Court

Drs Logistics( P ) Ltd And Anr vs Registrar General, Delhi High ... on 30 March, 2016

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                                     W.P.(C) 2770/2016

                                                Date of decision: 30th March, 2016


       DRS LOGISTICS( P ) LTD AND ANR                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through    Mr. Chander M. Lall and Ms. Nancy Roy
                     Advocates.

                             versus

       REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORS
                                                      ..... Respondent
                    Through      Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. Varun
                    Mishra, Advocates with Mr. Pawan Kalra, Deputy
                    Registrar, Original Side.


       SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The impugned notification dated 30th January, 2016, issued by the

Registrar General of Delhi High Court records that the Benches

designated as Commercial Division by Hon'ble the Chief Justice with

effect from 12th January, 2016 will decide the commercial disputes,

indicative that there would not be any part-heard matters, which would be

decided by the Judges, who had been designated as a Commercial

Division Judge prior to the new nomination/designation with effect from

12th January, 2016.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court who appears

on advance notice has filed before us a copy of the office order/noting

dated 30th January,2016 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, which reads as

under:-

"As per Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, all suits relating to commercial disputes in a High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of that High Court.

Therefore, in the event of any change in the judges nominated by the Chief Justice constituting the Commercial Division for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred under the Act, the part heard matters, if any, except those matters where the judgment has been reserved, are to be released and to be listed before the nominated judges in the Commercial Division."

4. Contention of the petitioners is that the aforesaid notification of the

Registrar General and the notings/office order of Hon'ble the Chief

Justice interfere with judicial discretion as part-heard matters should

remain on the board of the Judge, who has partly heard the case. This

has been the practice and convention of this Court. It is asserted that

this ensures expeditious disposal of the suits as the counsel do not

have to address arguments all over again. It is highlighted that in case

the suit/application has to be re-heard, the parties would have to bear

and incur additional expenditure and costs. If a case is being delayed,

the Judge concerned can release the case from part heard.

5. We have considered the said contentions, but do not find any

reason or ground to hold that the office order/noting dated 30 th

January, 2016 can be struck down as arbitrary or contrary to law. As

per the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial

Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act, for short), all suits

and applications relating to commercial disputes in the Delhi High

Court have to be heard and disposed of by a Commercial Division.

The Act stipulates that in all High Courts, like Delhi High Court,

having ordinary civil jurisdiction, the Chief Justice by an order would

constitute a Commercial Division having one or more Benches

consisting of a Single Judge for exercising jurisdiction and power

conferred under the Act. Sub-section 2 to Section 4 states that the

Chief Justice shall nominate such Judges of the High Court, who have

experience in dealing with commercial disputes and such Judges will

be designated as Judges of the Commercial Division. Section 5

relates to constitution of the Commercial Appellate Division. Section

7 relates to jurisdiction of the Commercial Division of the High Court

and stipulates that all suits and applications relating to commercial

disputes of a specified value etc. filed in the High Court which has

Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction shall be heard and disposed of by the

Commercial Division of that High Court. By necessary implication

section 7 stipulates that commercial disputes shall be decided by

Judges, who have been nominated by the Chief Justice to function

under Section 4 of the Act, as the Commercial Division Judge.

6. Sub-section 1 to Section 15 of the Act relates to transfer of pending

suits in the High Court where a Commercial Division has been

constituted. It states that all pending suits shall be transferred to the

Commercial Division i.e. before a Judge who has been nominated to

function as a Commercial Division. Proviso thereto, carves out an

exception where a final judgment has been reserved by a Judge of the

High Court or District Court prior to constitution of the Commercial

Division. Thus, a distinction is made between cases where judgment

has been reserved and all other pending cases. For the purpose of the

proviso, it does not matter whether substantial arguments have been

heard and the matter was part heard before a Judge of the High

Court/District Court. All such matters have to be transferred to the

Judge nominated to function as a Commercial Division.

7. Section 17 of the Act postulates maintenance of statistical data

with regard to number of suits, applications and appeals etc. filed

before the Commercial Division or Appellate Division etc. Data with

regard to pendency of such cases, status of case, disposal, are required

to be maintained and updated every month and the said data is to be

published on the website of the relevant High Court.

8. Under Section 18, the High Court may by notification issue

practice direction. Such practice directions dated 17 th November,

2015 have been issued by the Delhi High Court for filing of matters

and cases to be decided by the Commercial Division / Commercial

Appellate Division.

9. Sections 19 and 20 relate to infrastructure and facility for working

of Commercial Court or Commercial Division of the High Court and

the State Government is to provide for establishment of necessary

facilities etc.

10. Schedule to the Act relates to amendment, insertions etc. in the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These provide specific and strict

timeline and schedule for speedy disposal of Commercial Disputes.

Adverse consequences and penalties/costs are postulated, where

parties delay the proceedings.

11. Having noticed in brief the relevant provision of the Act, we

can understand and appreciate the object and purpose behind the

office order/noting. The Act mandates that the Chief Justice of the

High Court should nominate specific Judges, who would at a

particular time function as the Commercial Division Judges. Data

and details with regard to the commercial disputes has to be

maintained and uploaded. As noticed above, Section 15 of the Act

states that all pending cases shall be transferred to the Commercial

Division, except those where judgment has been reserved. Of course,

this section is applicable when a Commercial Division is constituted

at the initial stage. The office order/noting applies this principle even

on change of roster and when new Judges are nominated as the

Commercial Division Judges. If the plea of the petitioner is to be

accepted, we would have two categories of Commercial Division

Judges. The first category will be the then designated Commercial

Division Judges, who would be hearing commercial disputes cases

and the second category will be of Commercial Division Judges,

specific to part-heard matters and not others.

12. Importantly, whenever there is a change of designated

Commercial Division Judges, the earlier Judges who were dealing

with commercial disputes now have to deal with cases as per the new

roster. We all know and are aware about the heavy pendency and we

can take judicial notice of the overflowing dockets. This can create

difficulties and cause resultant delay in disposal of the commercial

disputes. As noted above, the Act fixes a timeline/schedule and

emphasis is on expeditious and speedy disposal. The said Judges

would function both as Commercial Division Judges while dealing

with part heard commercial disputes and also as non Commercial

Division Judges, when deciding and conducting proceedings in other

cases. Whenever there is change in practice, there is initial hesitation

and sometimes difficulties are perceived. These get worked out and

the issues/problems get settled. The counsel are aware that there is no

category of part-heard commercial cases. Some of the hypothetical

problems as visualised may not in fact arise. In case, any practical

difficulties or impediments are noticed, solutions can be found and if

required, modifications can be made.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to

the order sheets in the particular case. This, we believe, cannot be a

ground to accept the prayer and contention of the petitioner. Validity

of the office order/noting cannot be challenged and judged either on a

stray case or any unusual case, but on the generality of the situation.

14. It cannot be said that the office order/noting is unreasonable,

against public interest or otherwise contrary to any statutory principle.

The Chief Justice has the right to fix the roster and designate the

Commercial Division Judges. The writ petition has no merit.

Dismissed. No costs.