Delhi High Court
Nirmal Gupta vs Ram Niwas Gupta on 17 July, 2025
$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.07.2025
+ C.R.P. 180/2025, CM APPL. 36899/2025
NIRMAL GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate
versus
RAM NIWAS GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. This Court had on 16.07.2025 passed the following directions:
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115(1) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to set aside the order dated
17.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-07,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as
"Impugned Order"].
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioner raises a challenge
in view of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter
referred to as "CC Act"] to submit that the Petition is not maintainable.
Section 8 of the CC Act debars revisions against an order of a
commercial court in the following manner:
"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."
3. The Division Bench of this Court in Black Diamond Trackparts
(P) Ltd. & Ors v. Black Diamond Motors (P) Ltd.; 2021 SCC OnLine
Del 3946 has while considering the scope of the CC Act has expressly
held that it bars the remedy of a Revision Petition under Section 115,
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This judgment has been passed keeping
in view the statute under the CC Act itself. The relevant extract of the
Black Diamond Trackparts case is set out below:
"30. The reasoning in the aforesaid judgments gave rise to the
question, that since the remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC
though available under the CPC against the order of dismissal of
application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, 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 115 CPC, 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 115 CPC; 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
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 and purpose behind the Commercial Courts
Act and does not come in the way of expeditious disposal of
commercial suits."
[Emphasis Supplied]
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submits that there was
a direction passed by the Vacation Bench for a deposit of Rs.10 lacs, the
same has also not been deposited.
5. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
6. In the interest of justice, list on 17.07.2025 at the end of
Supplementary list."
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that
the demand draft as was directed by this Court, is ready.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks and is
granted permission to withdraw the present Petition.
4. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Pending
Application stands closed.
5. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
JULY 17, 2025/g.joshi
