Aihaana Achariya Sharma, v. M/S Maniyari Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,

Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2024 Aihaana Achariya Sharma, Daughter of Achariya Shankarlal Sharma, 44 years of age, Married, Wife of Amit Hanumanthrao Kulkarni, Indian National, Business, Residing at 1101, Antarctica C-9, Lodha Aqua, Opposite Western Express Highway, Landmark hakur Mall, Mira Road East, Mira Bhayander, Mira Road, hane, Maharashtra 401107 ... Applicant Versus

¶1M/s Maniyari Hotels Pvt. Ltd., A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, hr. its Director Mr. Deepak Govindram Metha Having its registered oice at No. 6, Airport Road, Chicalim Mormugao, Goa 403711.

¶2Amit Hanumanthrao Kulkarni, Son of Hanumanthrao B. Kulkarni, Residing at 1101, Antarctica C-9, Lodha Aqua, Opposite Western Express Highway, Landmark hakur Mall, Mira Road East, Mira Bhayander, Mira Road, hane, Maharashtra 401107. 3 . Bharat Kulkarni, Son of Mohan Kulkarni, Resident of Flat No.170621 Prestige Ferns Residency, Harlur Road, Bangalore, 560102. ...Respondents Mr Shivraj Gaonkar, Advocate with Mr Prabhav P. Sirvoicar, Advocate for the Applicant. 2025:BHC-GOA:1141 Mr Iftikhar Agha, Advocate with Mr Utkarsh Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES,J. DATED : ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶1his is a Civil Revision Application against an order dated

21.06.2024 passed by the Commercial Court/ the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco in Criminal Suit No.4/2020/A, dismissing an application at Exh.77 on its ile for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the bar under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act (the Act) would apply.

¶2It was the case of the Petitioner/original Defendant in the suit that the Plaintif, not having exhausted the pre-litigation requirement of subjecting case to mediation under Section 12A of the Act, the plaint was barred and ought to have been rejected.

¶3he Respondent/original Plaintif raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision application, arguing that the Petitioner has an eicacious remedy of appeal provided under sub-Section 1 of Section 13 of the Act. It was further submitted that on reading of Section 8 of the Act, the remedy of civil revision under the Code of Civil Procedure has been speciically barred and the bar covers all interlocutory orders passed during the course of the Commercial Suit. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC1129] and Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in case of State of Telangana and Anr v/s. M/s. Siddartha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Revision Petition No.2623 of 2024.

¶4here is no doubt that the sub-Section 1 of Section 13 provides an alternate remedy of an appeal against the order, which includes an order dismissing an application for rejection of a plaint. here is also a speciic bar in terms of Section 8 of the Act for a Civil Revision to be iled against any interlocutory order passed in the course of the suit. he present revision application would therefore be barred.

¶5he question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the case of the Petitioners for rejection of plaint was that there was a bar under Section 12A of the Act, this Court would exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.

¶6It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent that this very question has been addressed by the Telangana High Court in State of Telangana (supra) where the Telangana High Court has, considering the strong language deployed in Section 8 of the Act, held that a Writ Court would apply curbs on its exercise of powers under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. he relevant paragraphs where this argument is considered are quoted below: "3. he other objection taken by the petitioners was on the respondent circumventing the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of he Commercial Courts Act, 2015. he Trial Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and held that the mandatory nature of section 12A of the Act would only be made applicable on and from 20.08.2022 as held by Patil Automation (supra) and that the Suit, having been iled on

30.11.2021, would hence be saved from the embargo.

¶13It is settled law that the power of superintendence of a High Court under Article 227 is not an un-fettered jurisdiction where each and every order can be corrected or interfered with. Apart from the broad outlines of lagrant abuse, miscarriage of justice or dereliction of duty, the High Court must be conscious of invoking the power within limits. he limitation to such power would particularly assume importance in the face of a special statute like he Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which was enacted for the speciic purpose of speedy resolution of high value commercial disputes.

¶14herefore, the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act against iling of the Civil Revision Applications or Petitions cannot be taken lightly. he wording of section 8 is strong and is meant to be given efect to, notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force. he justiication for the embargo can be found in section 13 of the 2015 Act which provides for Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions to the next Court in the hierarchical pyramid of section 13(1A) of the 2015 Act.

¶15he petitioners herein have no answer as to why they have not iled an Appeal under section 13 (1) or (1A) of the 2015 Act and they have instead chosen to ile a Civil Revision Petition against the impugned order. One can presume that the choice may have something to do with the time limits under section 13(1) and (1A) of the 2015 Act, both of which provide for a period of 60 days from the date of the judgment/order for iling of the Appeal.

¶16More important however is that the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act speciically extends to "any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court". In the present case, the petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11 of he C.P.C. was rejected. he impugned order hence is an interlocutory order. he situation would have been reversed had the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C been allowed and the plaint been rejected amounting to a decree as deined in section 2(2) of the C.P.C."

¶7For the reasons contained in the judgment, I would be in complete agreement with the view taken in State of Telangana (supra) even on the facts of the present case. For the very same reasons cited in State of Telangana (supra), in my opinion, this would not be an appropriate case to exercise the Article 227 jurisdiction of this Court. For this reason too, the Revision Application must be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶8he fact however remains that in the present case, the Revision application has been iled on 04.07.2024, within the period of limitation otherwise prescribed for exercising the right of appeal in sub section 1 of Section 13 of the Act before the Commercial Appellate Court. An appeal would lie before the District Court against the impugned order dated

21.06.2024 and such appeal would have been otherwise iled within a period of limitation. Considering this position, the Applicant would obviously have to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the District Court along with an application for condonation of delay. Needless to state, the Commercial Appellate Court may consider the time spent by the Applicant before this Court pursuing the remedy of revision which is otherwise obviously barred by Section 8 and sub-section 1 of Section 13 of the Act.

¶9he learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that considering that the Petitioner resides in Mumbai, he would ile an appeal with an application for condonation of delay before the Commercial Appellate Court within the period of 10 days from today.

¶10he petitioner has expressed apprehension that the Commercial Court may proceed to hear the application iled by the Respondents/Plaintifs, for passing a decree on admission, which hearing is listed on 11.07.2025; the learned Advocate for the Respondent / Plaintif submits that the parties would jointly ile an application before the Commercial Court to defer the matter for a period of 10 days till the Applicant iles an appeal.

¶11he revision application is dismissed as being not maintainable in view of the reasons stated above and with the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.

¶12No costs.

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 10/07/2025 16:01:00