Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.04.2025
M/ S SAI WORLD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Debjani D. Purkayastha, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Sreejan Pankaj & Ms. Ritu, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition seeks to challenge an interlocutory order dated 14.07.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Comm-03/SEC/Saket, Delhi in CS(Comm) 449/2019 captioned M/s R.G. Bio Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sai World.
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent draws the attention of the Court to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “CC Act”]to submit that the present Petition is barred by the provisions of Section 8 of the CC Act.
3. This Court agrees. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “CC Act”] sets out that no civil revision petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order. It is apposite to set out Section 8 of the CC Act below:
4. 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:
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3946 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]
5. In view of Section 8 of the CC Act, the present Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance.