Order Of High Court Granting Leave To Institute Commercial Suit Will Be An Order Passed Under Commercial Courts Act: Madras High Court Full Bench

The full bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus noted that an order granting leave or refusing to revoke the leave granted is not appealable.

An order passed by this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction exercising powers under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Madras granting leave to any applicant to institute a suit within the jurisdiction of this Court will be an order passed under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the Commercial Division under Section 7 of the said Act.

The court was answering a reference made to it after two division benches of the High Court gave differing views on the manner in which the orders were to be treated.

Though the petitioners vehemently contended that an order granting/refusing to grant leave would be an order at the anterior stage and was not an order within the commercial jurisdiction of the court, the full bench disagreed with this view. The court noted that Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act which deals with the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts, did not make any such distinction between the anterior and the posterior stage.

Adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that a suit does not become a commercial cause unless it is numbered and any order passed prior to the stage of numbering would not be an order passed by the Commercial Division in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, we have to necessarily express our disinclination to accept the said argument.

The court added that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted with the intention of speedy disposal of commercial litigation by curtailing appeals at interlocutory stage and by fixing time lines for performance of acts.

In interpreting a statute particularly a statute like Commercial Courts Act, we have to necessarily go by the language employed by it and we cannot supplant or add to the provisions of the Act, so as to enlarge the scope of the provision. As we had already pointed out Section 7 which invests the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of commercial disputes in the Commercial Division of the High Court does not make a difference between pre-institution and post institution applications.

The court thus agreed with the submission of Advocate K Sukumaran, appearing for the respondent, that when the object of the legislature was to fast track litigation, the provisions had to be read in such a manner that they would further the objective of the Act. The court thus could not add to a legislative provision.

The court also noted that as per Clause 16 of Rule 4 of Order I of the Original Side Rules, a suit was defined as all proceedings which commences by the filing of a plaint. Further, Rule I of Order III of the Original side Rules which deals with an application for leave to institute the suit enables a party to present a copy of the plaint along with an application for leave. The court added that Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act was wide enough to cover this stage prior to numbering of the suit.

The court thus dismissed the appeals filed challenging the order refusing to revoke the leave granted for institution of suit as the same was not maintainable.

Case Title: Surajlal v. Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

Counsel for appellants: Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan and Mr.Sharath Chandran for Mr.N.P.Vijayakumar, Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan

Counsel for respondent: Mr.K.Sukumaran for Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan and Mr.S.Patrick