Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of two commercial suits filed before the Bombay High Court, where the plaintiffs claimed reliefs and the defendants raised preliminary objections under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action had arisen in Kolhapur and Delhi respectively. In Suit No. 516 of 2013, the plaintiff Manugraph India Limited, a company with its registered office in Mumbai, was opposed by the defendants Sigmarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, who contended that the plaintiff also had an office in Kolhapur and the suits should be tried there. Similarly, in Suit No. 632 of 2014, Ezeego One Travel & Tours Ltd. faced a jurisdiction challenge from Le Travenues Technology Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the relevant events occurred in Delhi. The single judge of the Bombay High Court, after hearing the parties, passed a detailed order on 31 March 2016, rejecting the preliminary objections and holding that the court had jurisdiction to try and entertain both suits. Aggrieved, the defendants filed Commercial Appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. At the hearing, the respondent-plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals. Senior counsel Mr. R.M. Kadam argued that the order under challenge was not appealable because Section 13 of the Act provides an exhaustive list of appealable orders, which includes only those specifically enumerated in Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Act, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submitted that an order on a preliminary issue under Section 9-A CPC does not fall within these categories, and that allowing such appeals would defeat the object of the Act, which is to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial disputes. The appellants contended that the order decided a jurisdictional issue and therefore prejudicially affected their rights, making it appealable. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising S.C. Dharmadhikari and Prakash D. Naik, JJ., after considering the scheme of Section 13, agreed with the respondents. It held that Section 13(1) and (2) clearly circumscribe the right of appeal, and the proviso does not enlarge the scope to include orders other than those mentioned. An order under Section 9-A CPC, being interlocutory in nature and not included in Order XLIII, is not appealable. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to limit appeals in commercial matters to prevent delay. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld, and all three Commercial Appeals (Nos. 40, 41, and 49 of 2016) were dismissed as not maintainable. The order of the single judge thus remained undisturbed, and the suits continued before the Commercial Division.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeals - Maintainability of Appeals under Commercial Courts Act - Section 13, Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 - Order XLIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The appellants-original defendants challenged the single judge's order rejecting their preliminary objection under Section 9-A CPC regarding territorial jurisdiction, contending that the order was appealable. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the order is not appealable under Section 13 as it does not fall within the categories specified in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The court, after examining the scheme of Section 13 and the legislative intent to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial disputes, held that the list of appealable orders is exhaustive and an order under Section 9-A CPC is not included. It ruled that the appeals were not maintainable and dismissed them. (Paras 12-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order dismissing a preliminary objection to territorial jurisdiction under Section 9-A CPC is appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, and whether the appeals filed against such an order are maintainable?
Final Decision
The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. The preliminary objection to the maintainability is upheld. The order of the single judge rejecting the jurisdiction objection is not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.
Law Points
- Maintainability of appeals under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act
- exhaustive list of appealable orders
- Order XLIII CPC
- Section 37 Arbitration Act
- legislative intent of expeditious disposal
- restrictive interpretation of appeal provisions
