Background of the Case:

• The case before the High Court of Delhi revolved around an appeal filed by Container Corporation of India Limited (the "Appellant") against an order dated November 16, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge.
• The Appellant was the defendant in a suit instituted by M/S Shivalaya Construction Company Private Limited and another party (the "Respondents").
• The primary contention of the Appellant before the Single Judge was that the Respondents' suit was barred by limitation, and accordingly, the Appellant had sought the dismissal of the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC empowers a court to reject a plaint if, among other reasons, it is evident from the statements made in the plaint that the suit is barred by law, including the law of limitation.
• However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Appellant's application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation, leading to the filing of the present appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Issue of the Case:

• The primary issue before the Division Bench of the High Court was the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Appellant under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• The Appellant challenged the rejection of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that the Respondents' suit was time-barred and ought to have been dismissed.
• In essence, the Court was tasked with determining whether an appeal could be sustained against an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the context of a commercial dispute governed by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Contentions of the Parties:

• Appellant's Contentions: The Appellant argued that the appeal was maintainable and placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D Kania & Anr.
• In this case, the Supreme Court had held that an appeal under the Letters Patent could be maintained against certain interlocutory orders, even if the order was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.
• The Appellant argued that, notwithstanding the absence of specific provisions in Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC allowing an appeal against the rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application, the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) route was available for the present case.
• Respondents' Contentions: While the document does not specifically detail the Respondents' arguments, it can be inferred that the Respondents opposed the appeal’s maintainability.
• They likely argued that the appeal was barred by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specifically under Section 13, which restricts the scope of appeals in commercial disputes to only those orders expressly enumerated as appealable under the CPC or other statutes.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

• Maintainability of Appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: The core issue was whether the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was appealable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• Applicability of the Letters Patent: The Appellant invoked the doctrine of Letters Patent to argue that the appeal was maintainable under the Letters Patent of the High Court.
• Precedents Governing Maintainability: The Court relied on precedents, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Another v. OCI Corporation & Another.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

• Scope of Appeals under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act: The Court noted that Section 13(1A) of the Act clearly limits the right of appeal in commercial disputes to orders expressly mentioned as appealable under the CPC or any other applicable law.
• Precedent from Kandla Export Corporation: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kandla Export Corporation to fortify its reasoning.
• Applicability of Letters Patent: The Court dismissed the Appellant's reliance on Shah Babulal Khimji, holding that the doctrine of Letters Patent was not applicable in light of the Commercial Courts Act.
• Previous Division Bench Decisions: The Court also referred to its own previous decision in Bhushan Oil and Fats Private Limited v. Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Private Limited.

Conclusion:
In light of the above reasoning, the Court held that the appeal was not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The rejection of the Appellant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC did not fall within the category of orders that could be appealed under the provisions of the CPC, the Arbitration Act, or any other statute governing commercial disputes. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the right of appeal in commercial disputes is limited and only those orders expressly enumerated as appealable can be challenged before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.

Case Citation: Container Corporation of India Vs Shivalaya Construction: 21.08.2024:FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2023: 2024:DHC6539-DB:Delhi High Court:Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539