Madras High Court
Ramanan Balagangatharan vs M/S.Rise East Entertainment ... on 24 March, 2022
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
Ramanan Balagangatharan .. Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Rise East Entertainment Private Limited,
rep by its Authorized Signatory
Easwara Chandra Vidyasagar Pentala,
2-A, 2nd Floor, Leel Mere Park Apartments,
No.1, College Lane Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondent
Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the
order dated 19.07.2021 passed in C.S.No.133 of 2019 and C.S.No.184 of
2021 on the file of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Commercial
Division) of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan
Page 1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
ORDER
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in C.S.No.184 of 2021, the defendant in the said suit has filed
the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2.On scrutinizing the papers, the Registry raised a query as to the
maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that
the Civil Revision Petition is very much maintainable before the Division
Bench of this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a
judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court reported in 2018
SCC Online Guj 1515 [State of Gujarat Vs. Union of India] wherein
the Division Bench has stated as follows:
"...
33.Even otherwise, considering the wordings used in
Page 2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, there is a serious
doubt whether the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial
Courts Act shall be applicable to the petitions under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Section 8 of the Commercial
Courts Act reads as under:
“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.”
...
41.In view of the above and for reasons stated above
and considering the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to hereinabove, our conclusions in nutshell are as
under:—
(1)The bar contained under Section 8 of the
Commercial Courts Act against entertainability of “civil
revision application or petition” against the interlocutory
orders passed by the subordinate/Commercial Courts,
Page 3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
shall not be applicable to the writ petitions under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
(2)The bar contained in Section 8 of the
Commercial Courts Act shall not affect the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of the orders, including
interlocutory orders, passed by the Commercial Court and
writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India may be entertainable, however, subject to the
following observations and restrictions:—
(a)Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate
Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the
subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it
does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which
it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being
exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law
and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned
thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction.
(b)The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India may not be exercised to correct
mere errors of fact or of law and may be exercised
Page 4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
only when the following requirements are satisfied:—
(i)the error is manifest and apparent on the face
of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear
ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law,
and
(ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice
has occasioned thereby
(c)A patent error is an error which is self-evident,
i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without
involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a
long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences
are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has
chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or
patent.
(d)The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the
supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and
only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of
the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of
justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution
and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the
above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked
during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a
subordinate court and error though calling for correction
is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the
Page 5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there
against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or
supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the
smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or
proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to
intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at
that very moment, may become incapable of correction at
a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in
travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result
in prolonging of the lis.
(3)Though while exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High
Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings
of the subordinate courts, it may not substitute its own
decision in place thereof.
(4)In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High
Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide
the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would
act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in
appropriate cases, itself make an order in supersession or
substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the
Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Page 6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
(5)That while exercising powers under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the High Court would have to
consider the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paragraph-39 in the case of Surya Dev Rai v.
Ram Chander Rai (supra), which are as under:
“39. Though we have tried to lay down broad
principles and working rules the fact remains that
the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under
Article-226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied
down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not
less than often the High Court would be faced with
dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings
there is bound to be delay in termination of
proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the
moment may earn immunity from correction. The
facts and circumstances of a given case may make it
more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-
restraint and not to intervene because the error of
jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being
taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the
wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights
and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred
at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may
Page 7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
be cases where a stitch in time would save nine’. At
the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is
there but the exercise is discretionary which will be
governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience
enriched by judicial experience and practical
wisdom of the Judge”.
4.It is settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the Subordinate Courts within
the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the Subordinate Court has
assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a
jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is
being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure
of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may
step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. It is also settled law that
the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may not
be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or of law and may be exercised
only when the following requirements are satisfied:
(i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings
such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the
Page 8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
provisions of law, and
(ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned
thereby.
5.The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised
by the High Court only in the case of Subordinate Courts. The learned
Single Judge of this Court cannot be termed as a subordinate to High
Court. When the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be
termed as an order passed by the Court Subordinate to High Court,
Article 227 has no application. In such view of the matter, the ratio laid
down by the Gujarat High Court is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
6.We are of the considered view that the Civil Revision Petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution filed challenging the order
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is not maintainable.
Page 9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P(SR).No.92516 of 2021
is rejected. No costs.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
va 24.03.2022
Page 10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
va
C.R.P.(SR).No.92516 of 2021
24.03.2022
Page 11/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
