1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the issue arising for consideration is with regards to the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Commercial Court at Delhi to entertain and adjudicate the suit.

2. The Trial Court by the impugned order has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. The impugned order arises out of a commercial suit which is governed by provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ('Act of 2015') Section 8 and Section 12(3) of the Act of 2015 read as under:

(Emphasis Supplied)

4. The provision of Section 8 of the Act of 2015 was considered by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10th August 2021, in CM(M) 132/2021, titled as Black Diamond Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd and a connected matter; also reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3946, wherein the Court held as under:

('Emphasis Supplied')

5. The Division Bench upon deciding the question of law arising from CM(M) 132/2021 had listed the matter before the roster bench under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Before the learned Single Judge, the challenge has been raised on the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned commercial court. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge of Court keeping the background of the scope of jurisdiction as explained by the Division Bench dismissed the said petition by order dated 27.08.2021. The relevant portion of the order read as under:

However, at the same time such jurisdiction cannot be exercised in derogation of the statutory provisions. In the present case, the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the CPC against the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been specifically taken away by the Commercial Courts Act . Therefore, once the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the CPC is barred, the same relief cannot be sought by means of filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as that would render the bar under the Commercial Courts Act otiose. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can only be made in cases of jurisdictional error or where there is manifest error in the face of the record. The Trial Court has rightly held that the principle of res judicata would not apply in the present case since the earlier suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. Even on the question of territorial jurisdiction, there is no such jurisdictional or manifest error that requires interference by this Court. In the present case, no grounds are made for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

('Emphasis Supplied')

6. The said judgment of the Division Bench was further explained by learned Single Judge in Ashok Kumar Puri and Anr. v. Sun Con Relators Pvt. Ltd. (2021) SCC OnLine Del 5220. The learned Single Judge, was also part of the Coram that delivered the judgment Black Diamond Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after taking note of the judgment of the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 20:37:13 Division Bench dismissed the petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution of India and held that in case of commercial suits the scope of interference is extremely narrow. The relevant extract of the said judgment read as under:

(Emphasis supplied)

7. The parties are directed to address arguments on the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised in these petitions keeping in view the limited scope of interference in these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders passed by the Commercial Court. The Petitioner would therefore have to show a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Courts at Delhi, which is apparent on the face of the record and not admissible to two interpretations.

8. Interim direction to the Trial Court to defer the hearing of the suit proceedings to a date beyond the date fixed by this Court shall continue until the next date of hearing.

9. List on 04.01.20247 in first ten (10) matters in advance list.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 16, 2023/hp/ms This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 20:37:13