Once Commercial Courts Designated, Civil Courts Can't Decide Specified-Value Disputes: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 10 August held that a civil court cannot adjudicate a commercial dispute of specified value that falls within the jurisdiction of a designated Commercial Court. Justice Easwaran S allowed an appeal filed by BRD Finance Limited, a kuri company, against the dismissal of its recovery suit by the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. He held: “Without transferring the same, the act of the Munsiff Court in proceeding to consider the suit on merits is clearly unsustainable and without...

Additional Written Statement Cannot Be Filed After 120-Day Limit In Commercial Suits: Kerala High Court

The Kerala high court has ruled that a defendant in a commercial suit cannot invoke the provision allowing additional written statements after the 120-day deadline for filing the written statement has expired. However, the commercial court can still exercise its inherent powers in appropriate circumstances to require an additional written statement.Justice Easwaran S. made the ruling while considering a petition filed by Subin Backer challenging the Kozhikode Commercial Court's refusal to accept...

Supreme Court Rejects NSEL Plea To Extend Committee Determining Defaulters' Liability To ₹937 Crore Suit

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed National Spot Exchange Ltd.'s (NSEL) plea seeking to extend an existing committee mechanism to its ₹937-crore recovery suit against N.K. Proteins Ltd., its promoters, directors, and related entities. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed NSEL's plea against the Bombay HC judgment refusing the same after hearing the parties. The three-member committee was constituted by the Bombay High Court in 2014 in...

Bombay High Court Rules In Favour Of IL&FS In ₹848.80 Crore Recovery Suits

The Bombay High Court has decreed four commercial summary suits in favour of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd., directing the borrowers, guarantors and other parties named in the respective suits to jointly and severally pay about ₹848.80 crore in outstanding dues. The amounts range from ₹53.94 crore to ₹321.46 crore across the four matters, with 9% interest from the date of filing until realisation.Justice Gauri Godse held that IL&FS had complied with directions to impound the loan,...

Commercial Courts Act Applies To Suits Filed Before 2015 Even If Re-numbered Later: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies to commercial suits instituted before the law came into force on October 23, 2015, even if they were converted or re-numbered as commercial suits later. The majority also held that the Act took away the right to appeal against orders that are not made appealable under its restricted appeal mechanism.A three-judge Bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha and Justice Amit Mahajan was...

Bombay High Court Says Judicial Machinery's Error Cannot Prejudice Litigant, Restores ₹2.04 Crore Suit

The Bombay High Court on 7 August held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer for an error attributable to the Court or its machinery and must be restored to the position it would have occupied had the error not occurred. A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil made the observation while restoring a Rs. 2.04 crore recovery suit filed by supplier and commission agent Jivaraj Ravaji Gandhi against Solapur Jilha Dudh Utpadak va Prakriya Sangh Maryadit, Solapur and...

Employment Disputes Not Commercial Disputes Under Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 7 August 2026 clarified that disputes arising from employment contracts, including claims for salary arrears and increments, do not qualify as “commercial disputes” under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but held that a Commercial Court must return such a plaint instead of dismissing the suit. A Division Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan upheld the finding that the dispute between Ram Lakhan Shukla and his employer was not a...

Monetary Claims Alone Do Not Bar Urgent Relief Exception To Pre-Institution Mediation: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on August 5 ruled that seeking monetary relief along with specific performance, declarations, and injunctions does not, by itself, mean that a commercial suit is only about compensation. It also does not mean that the suit cannot genuinely require urgent interim relief, an exception to the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.“The fact that a plaintiff seeks consequential monetary reliefs, in addition to equitable and...

Whether A Commercial Suit Is Urgent Enough To Skip Pre-Institution Mediation Is For Court To Decide: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that whether a commercial suit can bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act depends on the court's assessment of whether the case genuinely requires urgent interim relief. The assessment must be based on the pleadings and the reasons placed before the court by the party seeking the exemption. Justice Aniruddha Roy observed, "Since neither Section 12A of C.C. Act nor the Practice Procedure, 2021 specify or define what should...

Does A Dispute Arising After A Joint Venture Exit Remain A Commercial Dispute? Kerala High Court Answers

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dispute arising from an agreement executed to facilitate a partner's exit from a joint venture continues to qualify as a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, even if the claim is based on the dishonour of a cheque issued pursuant to the exit arrangement.Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment while dismissing a plea challenging an order of the Commercial Court, Devikulam, rejecting an objection to the maintainability of a...

Commercial Court Orders Not Amenable To Writ Of Certiorari: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has ruled that Commercial Courts have the "trapping of a Civil Court" and proceedings before them are civil proceedings. As a result, orders passed by Commercial Courts cannot be challenged through a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed: "Thus, a power is conferred upon the Commercial Courts to try a suit of a specified value, which is in ordinary sense is tried by...

Madras High Court Says Parties Can't Seek Leave To File Additional Written Statements In Commercial Suits

The Madras High Court has held that a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing parties to seek the court's permission to file an additional written statement after their original defence does not apply to commercial suitsThe court observed that entertaining such applications at the instance of parties would defeat the Commercial Courts Act's objective of ensuring speedy disposal of commercial disputes.“The object of the Commercial Courts Act, which is the speedy disposal of Commercial...