Delhi High Court
Vinay Gupta vs Ajay Kumar Gupta And Ors on 28 May, 2025
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.05.2025
+ C.R.P. 290/2024
VINAY GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari and Mr.
Manav Bhalla, Advocates.
versus
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate for R-
1.
Ms. Shahana Farah and Mr.
Abhigyan, Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"] read with Article
227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge an order dated
11.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Courts, South
East, Saket [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"].
2. The record reflects that the Impugned Order has been passed by the
learned Commercial Court deciding a challenge to the maintainability of the
suit and has after finding the suit not to be maintainable as a commercial
dispute, has adjourned the matter at the request of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
3. Since, the Impugned Order does not finally dispose of the suit, it
would be classified as an interim order. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as 'CC Act'] provides a bar against the
Revision Petition against an interlocutory order. It is apposite to set out
Section 8 of the CC Act below:
"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."
3.1 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
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3946
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. In the event that the Impugned Order is to be treated as a final order,
since the order does adjudicate the aspect of maintainability of the suit, the
challenge to such an order would only lie before a Division Bench of this
Court. Thus, this Petition would not be maintainable before this Court.
5. Undisputably thus, the remedies of the Petitioner lie before another
Court.
6. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law for redressal of his grievances.
7. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 28, 2025/pa/r Click here to check corrigendum, if any
