No Appeal If Commercial Court Refuses To Return Plaint For Lack of Jurisdiction: Karnataka High Court

On 29 January, the Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Trinetramilan Product Protection Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a packaging company, ruling that parties cannot immediately challenge a Commercial Court's decision to retain jurisdiction over a dispute.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha was hearing an appeal filed by Trinetramilan against a suit by Milan Packaging. It held that an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act) is not maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 (seeking the return of a plaint) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Trinetramilan was the defendant in a commercial suit filed by Milan Packaging. It filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, contending that the commercial court lacked jurisdiction and sought to have the plaint returned to the proper court. The Commercial Court dismissed the application in March 2024, prompting the High Court appeal.

Trinetramilan contended that the order carried the “trappings of finality” and should be treated as a “judgment” rather than a mere decision. Relying on the 2018 amendment to Section 13(1A), they argued that replacing “decision” with “judgment or order” indicated a legislative intent to expand appealable orders.

The primary question before the Court was whether an appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10, considering that Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the CPC expressly provides for an appeal only against an order returning a plaint.

The Bench, emphasised that under the CC Act, appeals are strictly limited to orders explicitly listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It noted that the non-obstante clause in Section 13(2) gives the CC Act overriding effect, barring appeals except as specifically provided.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kandla Exports Corporation v. OCI Corporation, the Bench clarified that orders dismissing applications under Order VII Rule 10 do not attract an appeal under the CC Act. Such orders may instead be challenged via revision or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Examining the 2018 amendment, the Court observed that while the word “decision” was replaced with “judgment or order,” the proviso restricting appealability remained unchanged, and the amendment's purpose was to facilitate the establishment of Commercial Courts at the district level, not to broaden appeal rights.

“We are unable to accept that replacing the proviso to Sub-section (1) to Subsection (1A) of Section 13 changes its meaning or import as explained by the Supreme Court in Kandla Exports Corporation,” the Bench held.

The Bench further highlighted a distinction in the Civil Procedure Code regarding appealability. It noted that Order XLIII Rule 1(a) specifically provides for an appeal when a court allows an application to return a plaint (effectively ending the suit in that court). However, the Code remains silent on appeals when such an application is rejected (meaning the suit continues). It observed:

“Order XLIII enlists the order passed on an Application under Order VII Rule 10 if it is allowed; however, it does not enlist the order in case such an Application is rejected.”

The Bench concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it. It also directed the Commercial Court to decide the suit expeditiously, noting that the Appellant had enjoyed an ex-parte interim order since 25 June 2024.

For Appellant: Advocate Abhinav Ramanand A.

For Respondent: Advocate Revathi Adinath Narde, and Adinath Narde.