#Commercial Courts Act 2015

The Delhi High Court quashed the ex-parte interim injunction against Nugenesys after finding the plaintiff deliberately concealed a cease-and-desist notice, breaching the duty of candour in the Statement of Truth. The decision warns trademark litigants that material suppression will invalidate injunctive relief under the Commercial Courts Act.

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 Bombay High Court clarifies the scope of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that urgent interim relief must be genuinely pleaded to bypass pre-institution mediation.

The Delhi High Court held that a trial court returning a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 can only adjudicate its own territorial jurisdiction, not that of other Delhi courts. This limits lower courts from pre-emptively deciding jurisdictional questions in commercial suits, affecting litigants and counsel across Delhi’s civil docket.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the mandatory 120-day limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC extends to plaintiffs responding to a defendant's counter-claim in commercial suits governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This clarifies a critical procedural gap, ensuring equal time constraints apply to both parties and reinforcing procedural fairness in commercial litigation.

Karnataka High Court rules that joint development agreements lacking precise specifications fail the 'readiness and willingness' test under Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, rendering them unenforceable. Developers risk forfeiture of security deposits if terms are not clearly defined, reinforcing strict compliance for contract enforcement.

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.

Karnataka High Court upholds payment liability for refurbishment and O&M services under a commercial contract, ruling that minor deficiencies do not absolve the defendant of payment obligations. The judgment reinforces the 'substantial performance' doctrine, ensuring contractors receive dues for completed work, subject to 18% interest for delayed payments.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the 120-day deadline for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is absolute. Defendants lose the right to file beyond this period, regardless of court vacations or delays, unless immediate action is taken. This reinforces strict statutory timelines in commercial litigation, impacting defendants' procedural rights.

Calcutta High Court holds that interim relief applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in commercial disputes must exclusively be heard by courts notified under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Orders passed by non-designated courts are set aside, reinforcing jurisdictional clarity for businesses and arbitral parties.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any pending suit involving commercial tenancy eviction and mesne profit, once the Commercial Division is constituted, must be transferred under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Orders passed by non-commercial divisions after this requirement arises are null and void, impacting landlords, commercial tenants, and property litigants across India who must now ensure proper jurisdictional routing from the outset.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that District Judges, even when acting as civil courts, lack jurisdiction to entertain Section 34 challenges to arbitral awards unless formally designated as Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This invalidates prior orders and mandates that all such objections be filed exclusively before constituted Commercial Courts, reshaping procedural strategy for businesses and state entities across India.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that oral tenancy agreements, when evidenced by rent receipts and used for commercial purposes, fall squarely within the definition of commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This removes the myth that only written contracts trigger commercial court jurisdiction, impacting landlords, tenants, and businesses operating without formal leases across India.

Himachal Pradesh High Court clarifies that mixed issues of law and fact under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC cannot be treated as preliminary issues, requiring evidence for determination.

Calcutta High Court holds that failure to lodge writ of summons within three years renders suit non-pending, invalidating transfer under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.