Pecuniary Jurisdiction No Bar Once Court Is Designated As Commercial Appellate Court: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 31 March, held that once the State designates a Court as a Commercial Appellate Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellate forum is determined strictly by such designation and not by the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge.

A Bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita dismissed an appeal filed by Lokesh Anand Singhal and Shilpi Anand Singhal, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the statutory appellate remedy lay before the designated Commercial Appellate Court.

The Bench observed:

“Section 13(1) of the Commercial Court Act provides that 'any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within the period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order'.”

The Singhals filed an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an order dated 17 February 2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup, Guwahati. The Civil Court had allowed a Section 9 application filed by Pride Realty and eight other respondents.

The dispute arose from allegations that Manoj Kumar Jalan siphoned off Rs. 35 crore from a partnership firm. Pride Realty objected to the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court.

It relied on Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act and argued that arbitration-related matters must proceed before the designated Commercial Court and appeals must lie before the Commercial Appellate Court.

The Singhals argued that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a special provision and overrides the Commercial Courts Act. They further submitted that the High Court could exercise jurisdiction since the dispute value exceeded Rs. 20 lakh. They also pointed out that the High Court had entertained similar appeals earlier.

The Court noted the Government of Assam notification dated 13 February 2019, which designated all Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts and District Judges as Commercial Appellate Courts. It held that appeals from Commercial Courts must lie before the District Judge irrespective of pecuniary limits.

The Bench relied on Jaycee Housing (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, and held that the Commercial Courts Act, being a later enactment, prevails over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in case of overlap. It further held that Section 10(3) governs arbitration-related filings before Commercial Courts.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction and granted liberty to the Singhals to approach the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.