Telangana High Court
The State Of Telanagana, vs M/S Siddartha Constructions Private ... on 20 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
C.R.P.No.2623 of 2024
Mr. E.Poornachander Rao, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing
for the petitioners.
Mr.V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm appearing
for the respondent.
ORDER:
(Per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order
dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Commercial Court at
Hyderabad rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for
rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The plaintiff/respondent herein had filed a Suit for a
direction on the defendants/petitioners herein to pay
Rs.29,78,10,763/- to the plaintiff along with future interest
@ 24% p.a. The petitioners filed the present Interlocutory
application in the said Suit for rejection of the plaint. The
Commercial Court dismissed the petitioners' application on the
ground that the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was within
the period of limitation i.e., from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
covered by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the wake
of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Trial Court was of the view that
the issue of limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law,
cannot be decided at the threshold and would require
adjudication of the pleadings and evidence which are to be led
by the parties.
3. The other objection taken by the petitioners was on the
respondent circumventing the mandatory requirement of pre-
institution mediation under section 12A of The Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. The Trial Court relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja
Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 1 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 filed on 30.11.2021, would hence be saved
from the embargo.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing
for the petitioners relies on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi2
and Patil Automation (supra) from the statutory mandate in
section 12A of the 2015 Act to urge that the plaintiff should
have first exhausted the pre-institution mediation requirement
since the Suit did not contemplate urgent interim relief.
(2022) 10 SCC 1
(2024) 5 SCC 815
Counsel submits that the judgment in Patil Automation (supra)
only declared that a Suit violating the mandate of section 12A of
the 2015 Act must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the
C.P.C. effective from 20.08.2022 which would be limited to the
declaration itself and not the statutory mandate contained in
section 12A of the 2015 Act. Counsel also relies on a decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in TATA Consumer Products
Limited v. ITC Limited (C.M.A.No.69 of 2023, dated 21.04.2023)
which reiterated the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act.
5. Counsel argues that the Civil Revision Petition is
maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.V.Ramana
Rao v. N.Subash (C.R.P.No.6745 of 2018, dated 10.04.2019).
Counsel also relies on M/s.Harpreet Singh Chabra v. Mrs.Suneet
Kaur Sahney (C.O.M.C.A.No.2 of 2018, dated 07.09.2018),
which held that Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked
by the High Court despite a bar on filing of Civil Revision
Applications from an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court
under section 8 of the 2015 Act.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff
submits on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and
that section 8 of the 2015 Act bars Civil Revision Applications
from an order passed by the Commercial Court. Counsel
submits that Order XX of the C.P.C., as amended by the 2015
Act makes it mandatory that a judgment must be pronounced
within 90 days from the conclusion of arguments. Counsel
submits that filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is only
to prolong the proceedings contrary to the mandate of the 2015
Act. Counsel submits that in any event, the plaintiff filed an
application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the C.P.C along with
the Suit seeking urgent relief.
7. It is also submitted that Patil Automation (supra) is
prospective in its application i.e., with effect from 20.08.2022 as
would be clear from paragraph 84 of the said judgment.
Counsel denies that the Suit is barred by limitation.
8. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for
Arbitration and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
9. The issue of maintainability should be decided before the
merits of the Civil Revision Petition i.e., whether the Commercial
Court was right in dismissing the petitioners' application for
rejection of the plaint which was filed by the respondent under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C is taken up for consideration.
10. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 contains a
specific bar against filing of a Civil Revision Application or a
petition from an interlocutory order of the Commercial Court
including an order on the issue of jurisdiction. Section 8 begins
with a non obstante clause in respect of any other law for the
time being in force and justifies the bar on the remedy provided
to an aggrieved party under section 13 of the 2015 Act.
11. Section 13 of the 2015 Act provides for Appeals from
decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions and
contemplates a hierarchy of Courts in filing of Appeals. The
embargo on Civil Revision Applications in section 8 is in
consonance with the Statements of Objects and Reasons of The
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which includes improvement of
efficiency and reduction of delays in disposal of the commercial
cases.
12. The bar contained in section 8 has been revisited by High
Courts from time to time. In M.V. Ramana Rao (supra), a
Division Bench of this Court construed the bar as being
restricted only to a revision under section 115 of the C.P.C and
not affecting the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. This view was reiterated in
Harpreet Singh Chhabra (supra). M.V. Ramana Rao (supra)
however sounded a caution in invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for the sole purpose of circumventing
section 8 of the 2015 Act with reference to the self-imposed
restriction for exercising the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
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 flagrant abuse, miscarriage of
justice or dereliction of duty, the High Court must be conscious
of invoking the power within limits. The limitation to such
power would particularly assume importance in the face of a
special statute like The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which was
enacted for the specific purpose of speedy resolution of high
value commercial disputes.
14. Therefore, the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act
against filing of the Civil Revision Applications or Petitions
cannot be taken lightly. The wording of section 8 is strong and
is meant to be given effect to, notwithstanding any other law for
the time being in force. The justification 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.
15. The petitioners herein have no answer as to why they
have not filed an Appeal under section 13 (1) or (1A) of the 2015
Act and they have instead chosen to file 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 filing
of the Appeal.
16. More important however is that the bar contained in
section 8 of the 2015 Act specifically extends to "any
interlocutory order of a Commercial Court". In the present case,
the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of The
C.P.C. was rejected. The impugned order hence is an
interlocutory order. The 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
defined in section 2(2) of the C.P.C.
17. We are therefore of the firm view that the bar contained in
section 8 of the 2015 Act would fully apply to the facts of the
present case and the petitioners cannot take refuge under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for maintaining the
present Civil Revision Petition.
18. Since we have held in favour of the respondent on the
issue of maintainability, we do not propose to go into the merits
of the dispute or the correctness/errors of the impugned order.
19. C.R.P.No.2623 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed by reason
of not being maintainable. All connected applications are
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
______________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date: 20.09.2024
va
