#Commercial Courts Act

The Division Bench dismissed a Section 37 appeal, affirming Section 9 relief restraining the appellants from creating third-party rights in a commercial mall project pending arbitration. The ruling clarifies that a prima facie case under a subsequent MOU (MOU-II) warrants interim protection even where complex ownership disputes and parallel proceedings cloud the title.

Delhi HC holds that a plaintiff cannot claim 'subsequent discovery' of records always in its custody by deferring search, defeating 'reasonable cause' under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC. This ruling impacts trademark suits, where filing similar documents with the plaint and multiple tranches of disclosure can be deemed unreasonable.

The Delhi High Court held that a summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC cannot be entertained after issues are framed, requiring the suit to go to trial for evidence appreciation. This clarifies that Order XIII-A does not permit premature disposal once the suit reaches the issue-framing stage.

The Supreme Court referred to a Larger Bench the question whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates infringement suits before a District Court, is rendered ineffective by Jharkhand’s notification treating Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court, and stayed the suit, affecting trademark litigants and clarifying IP-commercial court jurisdiction.

The Karnataka HC held that where a contract limits relief to extension of time only, an arbitral award cannot grant monetary claims for parapet works, revised rates or reinforcement quantities, and it upheld the denial of a time-related costs claim for lack of proof of quantum.

The Calcutta High Court held that an oral agreement for land sale, evidenced by parties' conduct, establishes a prima facie case for specific performance warranting a temporary injunction. The court ruled the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, and a plea for alternative damages does not disentitle the plaintiff from injunctive relief.

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is deemed applicable to appeals arising from suits filed before the Act’s commencement, even after the suits are re-numbered. Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, signalling that pre-Act commercial litigants cannot invoke the Act’s appeal provisions.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a hotel lease dispute remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, rejecting the view that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies. Landlords and tenants in Rajasthan must therefore seek relief from the Rent Tribunal, not commercial courts, for such lease matters.

Delhi High Court ruled that a plaintiff can obtain a Section 12A exemption when a continuing IP infringement case demands urgent interim relief, permitting the court to order release of title deeds against cash security. This clarifies that mediation waiver is available for time-sensitive IP disputes, affecting commercial litigants seeking swift injunctive relief.

The Orissa High Court ruled that writs of certiorari under Article 226 cannot be invoked to set aside orders of civil courts, including Commercial Courts, directing aggrieved parties to seek supervisory relief under Article 227. This narrows the procedural route for challenging civil-court judgments.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a plaintiff must demonstrate genuine urgent interim relief to retain leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and to satisfy the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Absent such urgency, the court revoked the leave and ordered the suit to be re-filed in the appropriate forum, tightening compliance with pre-litigation mediation for commercial disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that litigants cannot adopt a piecemeal approach to document production under the Commercial Courts Act, especially when documents were in their possession from the outset. Failure to adhere to prescribed timelines results in forfeiture of the right to submit additional evidence later, reinforcing procedural discipline in commercial disputes.

Bombay High Court clarifies that a dispute under a Leave and License Agreement qualifies as a 'commercial dispute' only if the property is actively used for trade or commerce, not merely intended for such use. The ruling directs plaintiffs to ordinary civil courts if the property was not operational, impacting jurisdiction in commercial property disputes.

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views when reviewing arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment clarifies that limitation for challenging an award begins only upon a clear refusal of performance, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters.

Sikkim High Court clarifies that mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act does not apply to suits filed before the 20.08.2022 amendment, shielding litigants from procedural dismissals. The ruling ensures legal certainty for pending commercial disputes and reinforces the non-retrospective application of procedural amendments.