Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta v. S. P. Enterprises Thr Its Prop. Kamalakar Devandan Yadav

Bombay HC20 Feb 2025COMAO/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of appeal under Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act 2015; order rejecting plaint / dismissing Notice of Motion for rejection of plaint dated 06-11-2023 held not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC; appeal disposed of with liberty to pursue available remedy; no appearance for appellant; Bombay High Court, Coram Alok Aradhe CJ and Bharati Dangre J; decided 20-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Appellant to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law ¶¶19

Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta vs… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

JPP 14. COMAO 4.24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 4 OF 2024 WITH

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6425 OF 2024

¶5

Abhishek Enterprises through its Prop. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

S.P. Enterprises through its Prop. Kamalakar Devnandan Yadav … Respondent

¶8

None for the Appellant/Applicant

¶9

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶10

DATE : 20^th FEBRUARY 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This Appeal, filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking directions against the order dated 6^th November 2023, by which Notice of Motion taken out for rejection of the plaint has been rejected.

¶13

Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is extracted

¶14

below for the facility of reference, which reads thus :-

¶15

1/2

¶16

JPP 14. COMAO 4.24.doc

¶17

“13(1-A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:

¶18

Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).”

¶19

It is evident that this Appeal lies against an order, against which an Appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order of rejection of the plaint is not an order appealable under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the Appeal filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Act is not maintainable. However, the same is disposed of with liberty to the Appellant to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law.

¶20

( BHARATI DANGRE, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶21

Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI PRAKASH PRAKASH PAWAR PAWAR Date: 2025.02.24 10:53:22 +0530

¶22

2/2

Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta v. S. P. Enterprises Thr Its Prop. Kamalakar Devandan Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta v. S. P. Enterprises Thr Its Prop. Kamalakar Devandan Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pranav J Choksi - Appellant vs National Spot Exchange Limited and Ors.

Rohan Hanumant Devkate vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Priya Architectural Solutions vs Sanghvi Parrsssva Enterprises LLP

V Ravi Prakash President Rtv vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Mmrda

Brihanmumbai Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sansthancha Federation Maryadit vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Mcgm)

Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. vs v Ravi Prakash President Rtv