LI Network
Published on: December 19, 2023 at 15:48 IST
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that an order dismissing the defendant’s application to reject or return a plaint is not appealable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor held that such orders are not explicitly listed in Order 43 of the CPC, which enumerates the types of orders appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Court emphasized that Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act allows an appeal for a person aggrieved by a judgment or order but noted that it should be read in conjunction with the proviso.
The proviso specifies that an appeal shall only lie from orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Court pointed out that the order in question, rejecting the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11(d) of the CPC, is not mentioned in Order XLIII.
The case involved an appeal challenging the rejection of Bank of India’s application to dismiss a commercial suit against it. The suit, filed by Maruti Civil Works, sought recovery of losses, damages, and compensation from Bank of India, alleging fraudulent invocation of the SARFAESI Act.
Bank of India argued that the suit should be under the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, and sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
The trial court rejected the application, leading to Bank of India’s appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the order is non-appealable under the Commercial Courts Act.
Case Title: Bank of India v. M/s. Maruti Civil Works