Delhi High Court recently examined the appellant jurisdiction of the commercial courts provided under Sec. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It was discussed in the case D&H India Ltd. v. Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd. Explicitly, Delhi High Court held that Sec. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act provides remedy to the person; aggrieved by the judgement or order passed by the Commercial Division of a high court. That he can appeal to Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within 60 days. Accordingly, there is a list of cases in which the aggrieved person can appeal against the judgements and orders passed.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd. filed a civil commercial suit against D&H India Ltd. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant from infringing the trademark SUPERON of the plaintiff. The defendant (appellant) made a statutory appeal before the single judge bench of Delhi High Court. The court dismissed the appeal. The counsel referred to the case of Samsung Leasing Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. The Delhi High Court held that orders passed by single judge bench exercising jurisdiction as a commercial court was not appealable to the division bench. Even in the Rahul Gupta Judgement, it was held by the court that no appeals lie against the orders passed by Ld. Joint Registrars in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, rather than in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction.
Findings of Delhi High Court
In Superon Case, the court held that Sec. 13(1A) is an enabling provision rather than a disabling provision. It allows the aggrieved party to invoke Sec. 13 and appeal against the orders passed under situation A, B and C as mentioned in the list. Furthermore, the court allowed the aggrieved party to approach the Commercial Appellate Division of High Court to assail orders and judgements not passed under Code of Civil Procedure, 1980.