Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
3F Industries Limited vs $ Transparent Technologies Solutions … on 18 May, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
*****
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1847/2024, 1172/2022
and 1685, 1686, 1688 and 1689 of 2024
Between
3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.
G. SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS
...PETITIONERS
and
TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, Rep.
by its Director, Sri Ajit Apte, Pushpa Heights, 1st Floor, Bibwewadi Comer,
Pune-411 037, Maharashtra and others
...RESPONDENTS
Date of Reserve : 12-02-2026
Date of Judgment pronounced : 18-5-2026
Date of Upload : 21-5-2026
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
1 Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No
be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment?
___________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
+ Civil Revision Petition Nos.1847/2024, 1172/2022
and 1685, 1686, 1688 and 1689 of 2024
% 18-5-2026
# 3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. G. SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS
...PETITIONERS
vs.
$ TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,
Rep. by its Director, Sri Ajit Apte, Pushpa Heights, 1st Floor, Bibwewadi
Comer, Pune-411 037, Maharashtra and others
...RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Venkat Challa, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar
and Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram
Counsel for Respondents: Sri V. Yatendra Kumar and
Sri Somu Krishna Murthy
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. CRP No.2183/2022, dt.12-9-2023
2. CRP No.1749/2023, dt.28-8-2023
3. CRP No.740/2024, dt.04-7-2024
4. CRP No.1932/2025, dt.22-9-2025
5. (2002) 2 SCC 542
3
APHC010335012024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3571]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 1847 OF 2024, 1172 OF 2022
AND 1685, 1686, 1688 AND 1689 OF 2024
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1847 OF 2024
Between:
1. 3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. G. SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMADASU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O PLOT NO. 43, MOTHE RAJKUMAR NAGAR, PATHEBAD, ELURU,
ANDHRA PRADESH. HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT P.O. BOX NO
15, TANUKU ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-534 101.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, Rep.
by its Director, Sri Ajit Apte, Pushpa Heights, 1st Floor, Bibwewadi
Comer, Pune-411 037, Maharashtra.
...RESPONDENT
4
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
toprays this Hon'ble Court to allow the instant Revision Petition by setting aside
the order dated 26.07.2024 in E.P.No. 20 of 2024 passed by the Hon'ble XI AddI
District Judge, Tadepalligudem and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may suspend the operation of the order dated 26.07.2024
("Impugned Order") passed by the Hon‟ble XI AddI District Judge.
Tadepalligudem in E.P.No. 20 of 2024 and set aside the consequential actions
pursuant to the said impugned order and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to permit the Petitioner/ Respondent/DHR to withdraw the amount of Rs:
15,75,000/- deposited by theRespondent/Petitioner/JDR on 11.09.2024 before
the Hon'ble XI Addl.District Court at Tadepalligudem and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VENKAT CHALLA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. V YATENDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1172 OF 2022
Between:
1. M/S. SURESH SURGICALS,, BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR, MR.MUPPARAJU SURESH, S/O.VENKATESWARLU,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WITH ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO.202,
1ST FLOOR, SRINIVASA CHAMBERS, OPP KGH OUT GATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM- 53002.
5
2. M/S. SURESH CRYOGENIC GASES,, BEING REPRESENTED BY
MR.MUPPARAJU SURESH, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, WITH ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO.202, 1 FLOOR,
SRINIVASA CHAMBERS, OPP KGH OUT GATE, VISAKHAPATNAM-
53002.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. ELLENBARIE INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD EIGL, BEING REPRESENTED
BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SANTAMAYA MOHAPATRA,
S/O.RAMESH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA, HINDU, AGED 47 YEARS,
OFFICE SITUATED AT 3A, RIPON STREET, 2ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-
700016 WITH ONE OF ITS BRANCHES/UNITS SITUATED AT PLOT
NO.57A, JN PHARMA CITY, PARAWADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM-
531 021, ANDHRA PRADESH. .. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
2. M/S CHAITRA MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, ASHOK NAGAR ROAD, OPP KPDT HIGH SCHOOL, ASHOK
NAGAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 534002.
3. M/S SEVEN HILLS HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SITUATED AT D.NO.114-4/A, WALTAIR MAIN ROAD, RAMNAGAR,
ROCKDALE LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM-53 0002.
4. ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SITUATED AT NH-5,
MALKAPURAM, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT-534005.
5. M/S PINNACLE HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SITUATED AT D.NO.10- 1112, APIIC HEALTH CITY, MUDASARLOVA
ROAD, CHINAGADHILI, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530040.
6. M/S SUNRISE MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, SITUATED AT D.NO.2-27-15, GOKUL STREET, NEAR SAFE
HOSPITAL, SRI NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-
53001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
6
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
tobegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the
order in I.A.no. 82 of 2022 in O.S.No. 253 of 2021 dt. 30.03.2022 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS.No. 253 of 2021 on the file
of the court of the Honourable Special Sessions'Judge for the trail of cases under
SC's and ST's (POA)-Cum XIth Additgional District and Sessions Judge at
Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the main CRP and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1685 OF 2024
Between:
1. ATIURI VENKATA SATYA VARA PRASAD,, S/O.A.V.S.R.ANJANEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.11-62-112 AND 115, KODURU
CASITA CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520001
...PETITIONER
AND
1. REDDIMI GANESH, S/o.Veerraju, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Flat
No.FF-2, Koduru Residency, Vishunuvardhana Rao Street, Labbipet,
Vijayawada-520010, Krishna District. Presently residing at Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates. Represented by his GPA Holder, Sri
Y.S.V.V.R.K.S.R. Naidu, S/o.Y.U.Bhaskara Rao Naidu, 39-2-17, FF-2,
7
Koduru Residency, Vishnuvardhana Rao Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada-
520010, Krishna District,
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
topleased to set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.07.2024 passed in I.A.
No.719 of 2023 in O.S. No. 526 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 526 of 2021 on the file of the
Court of the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, pending
the present Civil Revision Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SOMU KRISHNA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1686 OF 2024
Between:
1. ATLURI VENKATA SATYA VARA PRASAD,, S/O.A.V.S.R.ANJANEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.11-62-112 AND 115, KODURU
CASITA, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520001
...PETITIONER
AND
1. GALLA PRAVEEN, , S/o.Bhaskara Rao, Aged about 36 years, Hindu,
R/o.9-113, Ashok Nagar, Bundar Road, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna
District. Represented by his GPA Holder, Sri Bhaskara Rao Galla,
8
S/o.Veera Raghavaulu, aged about 68 years, Hindu, 9-113, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Ashok Nagar, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007, Krishna
District,
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
topleased to set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.07.2024 passed in I.A.
No.718 of 2023 in O.S. No. 525 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 525 of 2021 on the file of the
Court of the Hon‟ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, pending
the present Civil Revision Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SOMU KRISHNA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1688 OF 2024
Between:
1. ATLURI VENKATA SATYA VARA PRASAD, S/O.A.V.S.R.ANJANEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, R/O 11-62-112 AND 115, KODURU
CASITA, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520001
...PETITIONER
AND
1. MARRI SRIDHAR, S/o.Raghava Rao, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, House
No.2/12, Beside Panchayat Office, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural
9
Mandal, Vijayawada, Presently residing at 306 B Punggol Place, 03-29,
Singapore-822306. Represented by his GPA Holder, Sri Bhaskara Rao
Galla, S/o.Veera Raghavaulu aged about 68 years, Hindu, 9-113,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ashok Nagar, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007,
Krishna District
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
tomay be pleased to set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.07.2024 passed in
I.A. No.716 of 2023 in O.S. No. 501 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Honble
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may
be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O S. No. 501 of 2021 on the file of
the Court of the Hon‟ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada,
pending the present Civil Revision Petition and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SOMU KRISHNA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1689 OF 2024
Between:
1. ATIURI VENKATA SATYA VARA PRASAD,, S/O.A.V.S.R.ANJANEYULU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.11-62-112 AND 115, KODURU
CASITA, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520001
...PETITIONER
AND
10
1. JUTURU CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O.LATE RAMA SUBBAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU, FLAT.NO.61, GREEN PARK ENCLAVE,
KAPRA, HYDERABAD-500062.
2. JUTURU BHARATHA LAKSHMI, W/O.JUTURU CHANDRA MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HINDU, FLAT.NO.61, GREEN PARK
ENCLAVE, KAPRA, HYDERABAD-500062.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased
topleased to set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.07.2024 passed in I.A.
No.717 of 2023 in O.S. No. 500 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 500 of 2021 on the file of the
Court of the Hon‟ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, pending
the present Civil Revision Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SOMU KRISHNA MURTHY
The Court made the following:
11
Common Order:
(per Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.)
Pursuant to the order dated 23-8-2024 of a Division Bench of this Court
passed in C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 referring the following questions to a Larger
Bench, this Full Bench is constituted to answer the questions formulated by the
Division Bench for reference:
A. Whether the Amendment Act No.28 of 2018, in respect of Sections
2(1)(i) & 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by itself amends
the „specified value‟ as „not less than three lakhs rupees‟, for the
jurisdiction of the Commercial Court or it only enables the Central
Government & the State Government(s) to do so, by notification
specifying any amount, which shall not be less than three lakhs,
as „specified value‟, and it is only after such notification, the specified
value shall stand amended ?
B. Whether the „specified value‟ in Section 2(1)(i) in Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, as substituted by Act 28 of 2018 to the effect “which shall not
be less than Rupees three lakhs” in the place of “which shall not be less
than Rupees One Crore” shall be operative and effective from
i) the date of amendment i.e., w.e.f. 03.05.2018; or
ii) on the date notified in the notification being issued by the Central
Government under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act; or
iii) on the date notified in the notification being issued by the Andhra
Pradesh State Government in consultation with the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 3(1A) of the
Commercial Courts Act ?
C. Which judgment, U.V. Satyanarayana or Bellam Balakrishna, lays
down the law correctly ?
2. Brief overview of the facts leading to the lis in C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024
before the learned Division Bench may be delineated as follows:
12
(a) An execution petition seeking attachment of property under
Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC was filed in E.P.No.20 of 2024 on the file of the
XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, to execute an arbitral award
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The executing Court by an order dated
26-7-2024 ordered to post the said matter on 23-8-2024 to issue notice and
attachment under Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC on payment of process. The said
execution proceedings initiated before the executing Court which is the
XI Additional District Judge‟s Court, Tadepalligudem, are questioned before
a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid civil revision petition on the ground
that the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, which is a civil court and
not a commercial court, has no jurisdiction to execute the award as it lacks
inherent jurisdiction to entertain the said execution petition. It is contended
before the Division Bench that only the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam
alone is competent to entertain the execution petition and not by the Civil Court in
view Sections 10 and 15 read with Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In support of the said contention, the
petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of another Division Bench of this
Court rendered in the case of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. v.
R.K. Mining Private Limited1. In the case of Obulapuram Mining Company
Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that application for
execution is also an application within the meaning of Sections 10 and 15 of the
Act and after the Commercial Courts are constituted in the State of Andhra
Pradesh, only the said Commercial Courts have jurisdiction over the commercial
disputes of Specified Value even for execution and not the Civil Courts. It is
further held that all the orders passed by the Civil Courts in a commercial dispute
after 16-5-2019 were by a coram non-judice and were bad in law.
(b) While addressing arguments in the said civil revision petition before the
Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent therein
1
CRP No.2183/2022, dt.12-9-2023
13
relied on a judgment of another Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case
of Bellam Balakrishna v. Greenmount Developers2 and contended that until
the State Government issues a notification in consultation with the High Court,
the pecuniary value of three lakh rupees as fixed in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act will
not come into operation. Another judgment of other Division Bench of this Court
rendered in the case of U.V. Satyanarayana v. M/s. Shriram City Union
Finance Ltd.3 was also cited before the Division Bench in the above civil revision
petition wherein it is held that the execution petition to execute an order passed
by the Commercial Court is to be filed only in the Commercial Court and not in
the Civil Court. Considering the said two judgments rendered by two coordinate
Division Benches of this Court both in the cases of Bellam Balakrishna and
U.V. Satyanarayana (2 and 3 supra), the Division Bench in the above civil
revision petition was of the opinion that there is an apparent conflict between the
two judgments inasmuch as in the case of Bellam Balakrishna (2 supra) the
Court held that without notification, the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division
and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018
(No. 28 of 2018) (hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act”) was held not to
be operative so as to make the specified value not less than three lakh rupees
whereas in the case of U.V. Satyanarayana (3 supra), the Specified Value has
been taken as amended by Act 28 of 2018 itself to be not less than three lakh
rupees. The Court after considering the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 amending
the Specified Value in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act and inserting a new provision
under Section 3(1A) of the Act relating to pecuniary value and the aforesaid two
judgments rendered in the cases of Bellam Balakrishna and
U.V. Satyanarayana (2 and 3 supra) formulated the above questions for
reference to the Larger Bench on the ground that the Court found that there is
an apparent conflict between the aforesaid two judgments of coordinate Division
2
CRP No.1749/2023, dt.28-8-2023
3
CRP No.740/2024, dt.04-7-2024
14
Benches of this Court in the cases of Bellam Balakrishna and
U.V. Satyanarayana (2 and 3 supra).
(c) After the Division Bench in the above C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 has
referred the matter after formulating the above questions to a Larger Bench as
per the order passed on 23-8-2024, a similar issue came up for consideration
before a learned single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.1172 of 2022.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in the said C.R.P.No.1172 of 2022 has
taken to the notice of the learned single Judge that the issue involved in the said
case is also an issue involved in batch of other cases pending before the Division
Bench and cited the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23-8-2024 in
C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 before the learned single Judge. The learned single
Judge after considering the decision of the Division Bench formulating the
aforesaid questions to refer the same to a Larger Bench, ordered to place the
said matter also pending before the learned single Judge before the Hon‟ble
Chief Justice to pass necessary orders to post the matter before the Division
Bench. Accordingly, the said matter is also placed before the Division Bench.
Thereafter, a batch of civil revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.1685, 1686, 1688 and
1689 of 2024 involving the same question and issue came up for consideration
before another Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for both the
parties in the said batch of civil revision petitions have taken to the notice of the
said Division Bench that similar matters are directed to be placed before the
Hon‟ble Chief Justice by a coordinate Bench of this Court for constitution of
a Larger Bench in C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 as per order dated 23-8-2024.
Therefore, the said Division Bench also as per order dated 03-4-2025 directed
the Registry to post the above batch of civil revision petitions along with
C.R.P.No.1847 of 2024 before the appropriate Bench after obtaining necessary
orders from the Hon‟ble the Chief Justice.
(d) The above batch of civil revision petitions were initially heard by
a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge found that the
15
judgment of the Division Bench in Bellam Balakrishna‟s case appears to be
contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
directed the Registry to place the said batch of civil revision petitions before the
Hon‟ble Chief Justice for placing those matters before the Division Bench to
consider the issue. Thereafter, the said batch of civil revision petitions are
placed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench after noticing that
another Division Bench has referred the matter to a Larger Bench, ordered to
place those matters also before the appropriate Bench. Thus, all these batch of
civil revision petitions are referred to the Full Bench to answer the reference.
(e) This is how the matter has come up before this Full Bench to consider
the reference and to answer the questions formulated by the Division Bench.
3. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar and Sri S.V.S.S.
Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Yatendra Kumar and
Sri Somu Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Before deciding the controversy involved in the lis, it is expedient to
consider the legislative history of the Act and the object of the enactment i.e., the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The proposal to provide for speedy disposal and
high value commercial disputes has been under consideration of the Central
Government for quite a long time. As high value commercial disputes involve
complex facts and question of law, it is felt that there is a need to provide for
an independent mechanism for early resolution of the commercial disputes.
The Government was of the view that the early resolution of commercial disputes
shall create a positive image to the investor world about the independent and
responsive Indian Legal System. Considering the said proposal of the Central
Government, the Law Commission of India in its 188th Report had recommended
for constitution of commercial division in each High Court. Accordingly, the
Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2009 was introduced and passed by the
16
Rajya Sabha. However, during the discussion of the said Bill in the Rajya Sabha,
some members raised certain issues. Therefore, the matter was again referred
to the Law Commission of India for its examination. The Law Commission of
India in its 253rd Report has recommended for establishment of the Commercial
Courts, the Commercial Division and the Commercial Appellate Division in the
High Courts for disposal of commercial disputes of a Specified Value. Based on
the said recommendation of the Law Commission of India, a Bill viz., the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of
High Courts Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. It was referred to the
Standing Committee. As per the said Bill, all suits, appeals or applications
related to commercial disputes of Specified Value i.e., one crore rupees or above
are to be dealt with by the Commercial Courts or Commercial Division of the High
Court. As the Parliament was not in session at that time and as urgent steps
were needed to be taken, the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division in High Courts Ordinance, 2015 was promulgated
on 23-10-2015. Thereafter, the Bill has been passed by both the Houses of the
Parliament and received the assent of the President of India on 31-12-2015.
Thus, it came on to the Statute Book as the Commercial Courts, Commercial
Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016).
By Section 3 of the said Act, the nomenclature of the said Act was changed as
“The Commercial Courts Act, 2015“.
5. Thus, from the object of the enactment, it is very much clear that for the
purpose of speedy disposal of commercial disputes which involve complex facts
and questions of law, as an independent mechanism for the early resolution of
such commercial disputes is needed to create a positive image to the investor
world about the independent and responsive Indian Legal System, the Act came
to be enacted with the above laudable objective. It is to be noticed here that as
independent mechanism for early resolution of such commercial disputes is
17
required, appropriate provisions are incorporated in the Act constituting special
courts for resolution of the said commercial disputes of Specified Value. Initially,
the Specified Value of commercial disputes is fixed at not less than one crore
rupees in the year 2015 when the Act was introduced. Subsequently, by the
Amendment Act 28 of 2018, the definition of “Specified Value” as defined under
Section 2(1)(i) of the Act was amended with effect from 03-5-2018 fixing the
Specified Value as not less than three lakh rupees or such higher value as may
be notified by the Central Government. So, at present, the Specified Value as
amended by the Statute is not less than three lakh rupees or such higher value
as may be notified by the Central Government.
6. Bearing in mind the statement of object and reasons of the enactment
as detailed above and the purpose of introducing the Act, interpretation to any
section in the Act is required to be given to achieve the object of the enactment.
It is settled law that while interpreting any provision or section in the Act,
no attempt should be made to dilute the legislative intent and a purposive
interpretation to achieve the object of the enactment is to be given.
7. We have meticulously gone through the judgment of the Division Bench
which referred the matter to the Full Bench with the aforesaid questions
formulated by it. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the Division Bench
obviously did not notice and consider the difference and distinction between the
“Specified Value” as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act and the “pecuniary
value” as contemplated under Section 3(1A) of the Act. From the tenor of the
judgment and the questions that are formulated, it is very much clear and
apparent that the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that both the
Sections 2(1)(i) and 3(1A) of the Act deals with and speaks of the Specified
Value, which in fact is not correct. Both the terms “Specified Value” as defined
under Section 2(1)(i) in Chapter I of the Act and the “pecuniary value”
18
as contemplated in Section 3(1A) in Chapter II of the Act are two different and
distinct terms which operate in two different fields. They are not one and the
same. So, the whole problem arose in formulating the above questions for
reference as the said difference and distinction between the two terms “Specified
Value” and “pecuniary value” is not noticed and as they are taken as one and the
same.
8. Therefore, in order to answer the questions formulated by the Division
Bench which are under reference, few relevant provisions in the scheme of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are required to be noticed. Chapter I of the Act
deals with definitions of various terms and expressions used in various sections
of the Act. Section 2(1)(i) is part of Chapter I of the Act. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act
defines “Specified Value”, whereas Chapter II of the Act deals with constitution of
Commercial Courts and Section 3(1A) of the Act was newly incorporated in the
Chapter by the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 with effect from 03-5-2018 in Section
3 of Chapter II of the Act. In fact, Section 2(1)(i) of the Act defining “Specified
Value” was also amended by the same Amendment Act 28 of 2018 deleting the
words “which shall not be less than one crore rupees” and substituting the same
with the words “which shall not be less than three lakh rupees”. “Commercial
dispute” is defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act and all disputes arising out of the
transactions enumerated in Section 2(1)(c)(i) to (xxii) of the Act fall within the
definition of “commercial dispute”. A dispute, in order to be qualified as
a commercial dispute to be tried by a Commercial Court, it must satisfy the
definition of “Specified Value” as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act which reads
thus:
“2. Definitions.–(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–
(a) to (c)(i) to (xxii) …………………………………
Explanation.–A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely
because–
(a) to (h) ………………………………………………
19
(i) “Specified Value”, in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the
subject-matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with section 12
which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, as may be
notified by the Central Government.
(2) ………………………………………………. ”
9. Therefore, when a dispute falls within the definition of a “commercial
dispute” as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, it must further pass the test of
falling within the definition of “Specified Value” as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the
Act for the purpose of resolving the said dispute by the Commercial Court.
As “Specified Value” in relation to commercial dispute means, the value of the
subject-matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12
of the Act, which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value,
as may be notified by the Central Government, Section 2(1)(i) of the Act defining
the “Specified Value” is to be read along with Section 12(1) of the Act in Chapter
III of the Act which deals with the determination of Specified Value.
Section 12 of the Act contains clauses (a) to (d). As per clause (a), if the suit is
for recovery of money, then if the money sought to be recovered is not less than
three lakh rupees and in other words, if it is above three lakh rupees and if the
dispute is a “commercial dispute” as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, then
it would be a commercial dispute which is to be tried only by a Commercial Court
constituted under Section 3 of the Act. As per clause (b), if the suit relates to
movable property or to a right therein, if the market value of the movable property
is not less than three lakh rupees or if it is above three lakh rupees, then again
it would be a commercial dispute which is to be tried only by a Commercial Court.
As per clause (c), if the suit relates to immovable property or to a right therein,
then if the market value of the immovable property is not less than three lakh
rupees or if it is above three lakh rupees, then it would be a commercial dispute
to be tried only by the Commercial Court. As per clause (d), if the relief sought in
a suit relates to any other intangible right, then the market value of the said right
20as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for determining the
Specified Value. Therefore, the test to determine whether a particular dispute is
a commercial dispute and whether it is to be tried by a Commercial Court is to
first see whether the transaction relating to the dispute falls within the definition of
Section 2(1)(c)(i) to (xxii) of the Act and if the dispute satisfies the definition of
“commercial dispute” as defined in the said section, it has to be considered as
a commercial dispute. Then, the Specified Value in relation to the said
“commercial dispute” as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act is to be
considered and if the value of the subject-matter in respect of a suit as
determined in accordance with Section 12 of the Act is found to be not less than
three lakh rupees or in other words, if it is more than three lakh rupees, then the
said commercial dispute has to be tried only by a Commercial Court constituted
under Section 3 of the Act. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act envisages that if the value
of the subject-matter is not less than three lakh rupees or such higher value as
may be notified by the Central Government, then it is qualified to be considered
as a commercial dispute. As noticed supra, earlier when the Act came into force
in the year 2015, for the first time, the base level limit is fixed at not less than one
crore rupees and it was amended by substituting the same with the wording
“which shall not be less than three lakh rupees”. Therefore, Specified Value in
relation to a commercial dispute is determined by the Act itself by clearly stating
that if the value of the subject-matter is not less than three lakh rupees that the
said Specified Value of the said commercial dispute is to be taken into
consideration to decide whether it is to be tried by the Commercial Court or not.
So, no separate notification is required to be issued fixing the Specified Value at
not less than three lakh rupees. The Statute itself has fixed the value as not less
than three lakh rupees. Therefore, no separate notification is required to be
issued for the said purpose. However, a right has been conferred on the Central
Government by the Parliament under the Statute by way of delegated legislation
to fix such higher value i.e. more than the base limit prescribed in the Act as not
21less than three lakh rupees by way of issuing notification. Therefore, if the
Central Government intends to fix the higher value than the value fixed in the
Statute, then a notification is required to be given fixing the said higher value.
The disjunctive word “or” has been used after the wording “which shall not be
less than three lakh rupees”, which clearly separates the first part of the section
with the second part of the section which conferred power on the Central
Government to fix such higher value by way of issuing notification. Therefore,
we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that notification again for fixing the
Specified Value at not less than three lakh rupees is not required as the Statute
itself has prescribed the said base limit. We emphatically hold that it is only
when the Central Government intends to fix such higher value, then a separate
notification is required to be given in terms of the second part of Section 2(1)(i) of
the Act.
10. Legislative power is the exclusive function vested with the Parliament.
To amend the Act or even a section in the Act is the exclusive function of the
Parliament. So, when the Parliament in exercise of the said legislative power
has amended Section 2(1)(i) of the Act reducing the Specified Value from not
less than one Crore rupees to not less than three lakh rupees, it is really beyond
our comprehension as to why again a separate notification by the Central
Government is required to bring the amendment into force and to make it
operative. It is only when the Central Government in exercise of the power
delegated to it by the Parliament specifies higher value then only issuance of
notification to that effect is required to bring such higher value into force.
11. A power is conferred by the Statute itself under Section 2(1)(i) of the
Act on the Central Government to issue notification to fix such higher value than
not less than three lakh rupees to determine the Specified Value of a commercial
dispute. If any such notification is issued by the Central Government in exercise
22of its power conferred on it by the Statute, it amounts to law under Article
13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India
reads thus:
“13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.–
(1) …………………………………………
(2) …………………………………………….
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,–
(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) ……………………………………………..”
12. Since a notification is to be issued in terms of the power conferred on
the Central Government by the Statute itself, it has to be termed as a statutory
notification which amounts to a delegated legislation. The Parliament itself has
delegated its legislative power to the Central Government to fix higher value by
way of issuing notification. Delegated legislation is also a “law” under Article
13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. Issuance of a notification by the Central
Government or a State Government under the statutory authority have force of
law and they are legislative in character. The law is well settled that a notification
issued under the statutory authority is of a form of delegated (subordinate)
legislation and it has legislative character and force of law once validly published.
As no such notification is issued by the Central Government, the Specified Value
as determined by the Parliament as not less than three lakh rupees would
continue to prevail and the same has to be taken into consideration.
13. A Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of
M/s. Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 4. After
considering the definition of the “Specified Value” under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act,
4
CRP No.1932/2025, dt.22-9-2025
23
the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court has also at para-12 of the
judgment in no uncertain terms and in specific terms clearly held that the section
does not contain any requirement of issuing a separate notification by the
Government for giving effect to the amendment to reduce the Specified Value
from one crore rupees to three lakh rupees and further held that in fact,
Section 2(1)(i) of the Act only mentions notification by the Central Government
for raising the base limit level from three lakh rupees to a higher value with
regard to Specified Value of a commercial dispute. The Division Bench of the
Telangana High Court also referred the judgment rendered by a learned single
Judge of the said Court who has taken the same view in M/s. Srinivasa
Construction v. D. Muralidhar Rao (CRP No.297/2025, dated 21-3-2025).
We fully concur with the said view taken by the Division Bench of the Telangana
High Court in view of our above discussion and the said decision is quoted with
approval to answer question No.‟A‟ formulated by the Division Bench of this
Court under reference.
14. As regards the newly inserted provision of Section 3(1A) of the Act is
concerned, it was earlier not there when the Act came into force for the first time
in the year 2015. It was inserted by way of the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 with
effect from 03-5-2018. It was incorporated in Chapter II of the Act. As noticed
supra, Chapter II of the Act deals with constitution of the Commercial Courts.
As per Section 3(1) of the Act, the State Government, in consultation with the
concerned High Court may, by notification, constitute such number of
Commercial Courts at District level for exercising the jurisdiction and powers
conferred on those Courts under the Act. The first proviso to Section 3(1) of the
Act mandates that the State Government, in consultation with the concerned
High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge
level where the High Court is exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
The second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act deals with specifying the pecuniary
24
jurisdiction where the High Court is exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction,
by the State Government by notification in respect of the District Courts fixing it at
not less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction
exercised by the District Courts. So, the first proviso envisages that with respect
to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government
may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, constitute Commercial
Courts at the District Judge level by issuing notification to that effect. Similarly,
the second proviso envisages that with respect to a territory over which the High
Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may specify
such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not
more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts as it may
consider necessary by way of issuing notification to that effect. Therefore, both
the first proviso and the second proviso apply only when the concerned High
Court of a State exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The High Court of
Andhra Pradesh has no ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, both the
first and the second provisos are not applicable insofar as they relate to
Commercial Courts established in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
15. The first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act is also amended by Act 28 of
2018 with effect from 03-5-2018. Earlier, the first proviso reads thus:
“Provided that no Commercial Court shall be constituted in the territory over which
the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction.”
Therefore, as per the original first proviso, when the concerned High Court
exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the Statute mandates that no
Commercial Court shall be constituted in the said territory. The first proviso is
completely amended by Act 28 of 2018 and now it reads thus:
“Provided that with respect to the High Court having ordinary original civil
jurisdiction, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level.”
Therefore, now the amended provision enables the State Government by
way of issuing notification to constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge
25
level even when the concerned High Court is exercising ordinary original civil
jurisdiction in the said territory. As already noticed supra, as the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh is not exercising any ordinary original civil jurisdiction in the
State of Andhra Pradesh, the first proviso has absolutely no application insofar
as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. So, both the first proviso and the
second proviso are not applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
16. This newly inserted Section 3(1A) of the Act was not there earlier when
the Act came into force in the year 2015. It was introduced for the first time in the
year 2018 with effect from 03-5-2018. In our considered view, this new insertion
of Section 3(1A) of the Act is made consequent to the amendment of the
definition of “Specified Value” under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act reducing the value
of the subject matter of a commercial dispute to not less than three lakh rupees
from not less than one crore rupees. As the base limit is now drastically reduced
to three lakh rupees from one crore rupees, visualizing a situation that there may
be heavy increase in the pendency of commercial disputes in the special courts
and the special courts constituted at district level would be flooded with
thousands of cases and will be over burdened, to enable the State Government
in case of any necessity to constitute more special courts even below the level of
a District Judge to try and dispose of the commercial suits of less value, the said
Section 3(1A) of the Act was incorporated in the Act. It is significant to note that
Section 3(1)(3) of the Act earlier prior to its amendment mandates that
Commercial Courts are to be presided over by officers from amongst the cadre of
Higher Judicial Service in the State. Therefore, as the Specified Value is not less
than one crore rupees as per the unamended provision when the Act came into
force, in Section 3(1)(3) of the Act, it was stated that the Commercial Courts are
to be presided over by the officers of the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the
State i.e., the District Judges. Now, this Section 3(1)(3) of the Act is also
amended by the same Amendment Act 28 of 2018 with effect from 03-5-2018.
26
The wording “Commercial Court, from amongst the cadre of Higher Judicial
Service in the State” is deleted and it is substituted by the wording “Commercial
Court either at the level of District Judge or a Court below the level of a District
Judge”. Obviously to enable the State Government to constitute Commercial
Courts even at the level below the Court of a District Judge, as the Specified
Value is now reduced to three lakh rupees, the said amendment is made.
17. The newly inserted provision of Section 3(1A) of the Act contains
a non-obstante clause giving overriding effect over all provisions of the Act and it
mandates that the State Government, after consultation with the concerned High
Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than
three lakh rupees or such higher value for whole or part of the State as it may
consider necessary by way of issuing notification in consultation with the High
Court. This amended provision Section 3(1A) of the Act is to be read along with
Section 3(3) of the Act which says that the State Government may, with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons
having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the Judge or Judges
of a Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a court below the
level of a District Judge. Here, it is to be noticed that it is stated in Section 3(1) of
the Act that Commercial Courts are to be constituted at District level which
means at the District Judge level. In Section 3(3) of the Act it was earlier stated
to be presided over by from amongst the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the
State. Now, the amended provision Section 3(1A) read with Section 3(3) of the
Act makes it clear that a power is conferred on the State Government to issue
notification in consultation with the High Court specifying such pecuniary value
which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value for whole or
part of the State and to appoint a Judge for a Commercial Court either at the
level of District Judge or a Court below the level of a District Judge. Obviously,
the power to specify the pecuniary value by way of notification on the State
27
Government in consultation with the High Court is conferred on the State
Government to confer jurisdiction on a Court below the level of a District Judge
also. Probably to reduce the burden on the Courts at District Judge level in case
of increase in pendency of commercial disputes then to enable the State
Government to confer jurisdiction on the Courts below the level of District Judge
the said power appears to have been conferred on the State Government.
The said intention of the Parliament to confer jurisdiction of Commercial Courts
on the courts below the level of District Judge is clear and apparent from the
object of the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 in incorporating the newly introduced
Section 3(1A) in Chapter II of the Act. It is clearly stated in the statement of
objects and reasons of the Amendment Act 28 of 2015 as follows:
“4. It is proposed to introduce the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division
and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2018 to
replace the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, which inter alia, provides for
the following namely:–
(i) to reduce the specified value of commercial disputes from the existing one crore
rupees to three lakh rupees, and to enable the parties to approach the lowest level
of subordinate courts for speedy resolution of commercial disputes;
(ii) to (v) …………………………………… .
18. Therefore, a careful perusal of the amended provision under Section
3(1A) of the Act along with amended Section 3(3) of the Act makes it very clear
that for the purpose of fixing the pecuniary value at more than three lakh rupees
for whole or any part of the State a notification is required to be given by the
State Government in consultation with the High Court. This Section 3(1A) of the
Act inserted in Chapter II of the Act dealing with “pecuniary value” of Commercial
Courts has absolutely nothing to do with the “Specified Value” as defined in
Section 2(1)(i) contained in Chapter I of the Act. Specified Value is altogether
different from the pecuniary value. They are two separate and distinct
28
expressions and terms which wholly operate in two different fields. Specified
Value deals with the value of the subject-matter in relation to a commercial
dispute, whereas the pecuniary value relates to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court which tries the said commercial dispute. Though the term “pecuniary
value” used in Section 3(1A) of the Act is not defined in the Act, Section 2(2) of
the Act dealing with the definitions clearly mandates that the words and
expressions used and not defined in the Act but defined in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall have the same
meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code and the Act. For better
appreciation, Section 2(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder and it reads thus:
“2. Definitions.–(1) ……………………
(2) The words and expressions used and not defined in this Act but
defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall have the same meanings respectively
assigned to them in that Code and the Act.”
19. Now, it is relevant to note that Section 6 of CPC deals with “pecuniary
jurisdiction”. It reads thus:
“6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.–Save in so far as is otherwise expressly
provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction
over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the
pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.”
A reading of Section 6 of CPC makes it clear that no Court would have
jurisdiction over suits when the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds
the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. As Section 3(3) of the Act
empowers the State Government to appoint a person dealing with commercial
disputes to be a Judge of a Commercial Court with the concurrence of the Chief
Justice of the High Court even to a Court below the level of a District Judge, it is
obvious that the power to confer jurisdiction to try commercial dispute can also
be conferred on a Court below the level of a District Judge i.e. on a Civil Judge
29
(Senior Division) or a Civil Judge (Junior Division) when a need or necessity
arises to establish more courts at the level below the District Judge level.
So, if the State Government feels the necessity then a notification is to be issued
by the State Government in terms of Section 3(1A) of the Act specifying the
pecuniary value. Till such time even without such notification, the present
Commercial Courts can try the commercial suits of a Specified Value irrespective
of its pecuniary value. A careful and conjoint reading of Section 3(1A) and 3(3)
of the Act shows that the above is the intention of the Parliament in introducing
Section 3(1A) of the Act by way of the Amendment Act 28 of 2018. Therefore,
for the purpose of specifying the pecuniary value which shall not be less than
three lakh rupees or such higher value for whole or any part of the State,
we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that notification by a State Government
is required to be given for the said purpose. No such notification in terms of
Section 3(1A) of the Act has been issued by the State Government till now
specifying the pecuniary value in consultation with the High Court. Probably as
jurisdiction to try commercial dispute is not conferred till now on the Courts below
the District Judge level, such notification is not issued by the State Government.
20. The contention raised at the time of hearing the reference that as
no notification in exercise of the powers conferred by the State Government
under Section 3(1A) of the Act was given specifying the pecuniary value, the two
Commercial Courts which are now constituted in the State of Andhra Pradesh
have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the commercial disputes and as such
that two special courts are not competent to try and dispose of any such
commercial disputes is absolutely devoid of any merit. Though the said
contention is not elaborated, obviously the idea that is sought to be conveyed is
that the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge under Section 16 of
the A.P. Civil Courts Act to try a suit is above fifty lakh rupees with unlimited
jurisdiction and as such in respect of disputes involving below fifty lakh rupees,
30
the District Judge is not competent to entertain the dispute in the absence of any
notification issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred
on it under Section 3(1A) of the Act specifying the pecuniary value of
a Commercial Court below fifty lakh rupees and that he has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute. The said argument is wholly
misplaced and the contention is untenable.
21. In this regard, it is to be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is
a special enactment and it is a Central Act. So, the Commercial Courts are
constituted and established under the special enactment. So, they are special
courts established for the purpose of dealing with a particular nature of disputes
viz., the commercial disputes of a Specified Value. When a special court is
constituted under a special enactment to decide a particular nature of dispute
i.e., a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, irrespective of the pecuniary
limits or jurisdiction conferred on an ordinary Civil Court under the Andhra
Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 which is a State enactment, the special court
would have jurisdiction to try the said particular nature of dispute. Therefore, the
Commercial Court, which is a special court constituted under the special
enactment, would have ample jurisdiction to try the dispute involving above the
value of three lakh rupees and it is perfectly competent to try and dispose of the
said cases. Though two Commercial Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh
were established under the Act, one in Vijayawada and another in
Visakhapatnam conferring territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act
and the officers at the level of District Judges are presiding over the said Courts,
it is well within their competence to try the said commercial disputes as per the
territorial jurisdiction conferred on them irrespective of the pecuniary limits
conferred on the District Judge under the A.P. Civil Courts Act. It is to be noticed
that as per Section 2 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act dealing with definition clause,
“Court” means a Civil Court established or deemed to be established under this
31
Act i.e., the A.P. Civil Courts Act. District Court is established under Section 10
of the A.P. Civil Courts Act. Civil Judges (Senior Division) and Civil Judges
(Junior Division) are also established under Section 12 of the A.P. Civil Courts
Act. So, these are the ordinary Civil Courts established at three levels i.e.,
District Judge level, Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior
Division) level in the State of Andhra Pradesh under the aforesaid A.P. Civil
Courts Act which is the State Act. Pecuniary jurisdiction or limits is conferred on
the said Courts under Section 16 of the Act. The District Judge is conferred with
the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, the amount or value of the subject
matter which exceeds rupees fifty lakhs. Civil Judge (Senior Division) is
conferred with the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature which exceeds rupees
twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs and similarly, Civil Judge
(Junior Division) can try suits of civil nature involving the amount or value of the
subject matter which does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Thus, the said
pecuniary jurisdiction or limits is conferred on ordinary Civil Courts constituted
under the A.P. Civil Courts Act. Now, it is significant to note that the Commercial
Courts, which are special courts, are not constituted under the A.P. Civil Courts
Act to make the said pecuniary limits conferred on the ordinary Civil Courts
constituted under the A.P. Civil Courts Act apply to the Commercial Courts which
are special courts constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Therefore, one should not get confused with the pecuniary limits or jurisdiction
conferred on the ordinary Civil Courts in the A.P. Civil Courts Act to decide
whether the Commercial Courts which are special courts constituted under the
Commercial Courts Act got jurisdiction to try the disputes as per the pecuniary
limits conferred on the Civil Courts. Jurisdiction conferred on Commercial Courts
is a special jurisdiction under the special enactment.
22. It is also well established law that when a special court is constituted
under the special enactment to deal with the particular nature of disputes, the
32
jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts is impliedly barred and excluded. In view
of the said law also, the said contention is bereft of any legal foundation and
cannot be countenanced. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad 5 held
while dealing with a dispute relating to termination of services of an employee
that such a dispute is an industrial dispute and the appropriate forum to decide
it is the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such cases is impliedly barred. The Apex Court
further held that the dispute is essentially an industrial dispute under the
Industrial Disputes Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hear such a suit
was barred.
23. The analogy squarely applies to the present case also. Here also, the
dispute is a commercial dispute of a Specified Value and special court is
constituted under the Commercial Courts Act to resolve the said dispute.
Therefore, the jurisdiction of an ordinary Civil Court is impliedly barred. So, the
A.P. Civil Courts Act cannot be applied for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the special court.
24. The present two Commercial Courts established in the State of Andhra
Pradesh in Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam are being presided over by an officer
of a District Judge cadre. Probably as Section 3(1)(3) of the Act as it stood prior
to its amendment mandates that Commercial Courts are to be presided over by
the officers amongst the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges in
the State as the Specified Value at that time was not less than one crore rupees,
Commercial Courts are established with the officers of a District Judge cadre.
But no steps are taken subsequent to the various amendments which are made
in the Act and particularly in Section 3 of the Act as discussed above to give
5
(2002) 2 SCC 542
33
effect to the said amended provisions. So, the two Commercial Courts are still
being presided over by the officers of District Judge cadre. As even the
amended Section 3(3) of the Act mandates that they can be presided over by the
officers either at the District Judge level or below the level of a District Judge, the
Courts are being continued with the same cadre officers. But even then, on the
ground that pecuniary limits in terms of Section 3(1A) of the Act are not specified
by way of issuing a notification by the State Government, it cannot be said that
the said officers of the two Courts are not competent to try and adjudicate the
commercial disputes. As long as the Commercial Courts are being presided over
only by one cadre officer i.e., the District Judge, the need for specifying or
question of fixing the pecuniary limits does not arise. It is only when the
Commercial Courts are presided over by more than one level officers or one
cadre officers, then a need or necessity to specify the pecuniary limits of the said
Courts would arise to determine as to which cadre officer has to try the said suits
of particular pecuniary value. For example, if officers at the District Judge level
and also at the level below the District Judge i.e., the Senior Civil Judge are
appointed to preside over the Commercial Courts in view Section 3(3) of the Act,
then to decide which dispute is to be tried by the District Judge level officer and
which dispute is to be decided by the Senior Civil Judge officer, pecuniary limits
are to be specified. As long as there is only one cadre officer presiding over the
Commercial Courts, the question of deciding the pecuniary limits does not arise
at all. When only one cadre officer i.e., the District Judge level officers are
presiding over the Commercial Courts and if a notification is issued under
Section 3(1A) of the Act specifying the pecuniary limits when there is no officer
below the level of a District Judge to preside over the Commercial Courts and
a pecuniary limit of fifty lakh rupees and above is fixed for the District Judge to try
the commercial disputes, then what would be the fate of the cases pending in the
said Courts below the value of fifty lakh rupees. The question would be who has
to try the said cases below the value of fifty lakh rupees when the Commercial
34
Courts are not presided over by the officers below the level of a District Judge.
This is the practical problem that may arise at present if a notification fixing the
pecuniary limit under Section 3(1A) of the Act is issued. It is only if the State
Government decides to establish Commercial Courts to be presided over by the
officers below the level of a District Judge also then only issuance of notification
under Section 3(1A) of the Act specifying the pecuniary limits or value assumes
significance. Therefore, if the State Government in consultation with the High
Court in future decides to appoint an officer below the level of District Judge also
to preside over the Commercial Courts then it has to issue notification under
Section 3(1A) of the act specifying the pecuniary limits. As the Specified Value is
reduced from one crore rupees to three lakh rupees by way of amendment, it will
no way affect the competency or jurisdiction of the District Judge to preside over
the Commercial Court and again it is to be clarified that Specified Value has
nothing to do with the pecuniary limits and it is only to determine whether
a commercial dispute is qualified to be decided by a Commercial Court or not,
the Specified Value is to be considered but not to decide the pecuniary limits or
jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts. When more than one level officer are
presiding over the Commercial Courts then only a notification fixing the pecuniary
limits is required.
Therefore, the contention raised to that effect holds no water and it is
devoid of merit and the same is liable to be rejected.
25. The same view which we have taken that “Specified Value” as defined
in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act is different from “pecuniary value” as mentioned in
Section 3(1A) of the Act has been also taken by the Division Bench of the
Telangana High Court in the case of M/s. Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd. (4 supra).
At para-13 of the judgment, it is held as follows:
“13. Second, the expression „Specified Value‟ in section 2(1)(i) is distinct and
different from „pecuniary value‟ in section 3(1A) of the 2015 Act. … … …”
35
At para-15 of the judgment, it is held by the Division Bench of the
Telangana High Court that the second proviso to section 3(1) looks at the
territorial limits of the concerned High Courts having ordinary original civil
jurisdiction and gives the State Government the option, through Notification,
to specify the pecuniary value of the Courts within such territory which shall not
be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction
exercisable by the District Courts.
Ultimately, at para-17 of the judgment, it is held that both the provisions i.e.
Section 2(1)(i) of the Act relating to Specified Value and Section 3(1A) of the Act
relating to pecuniary value are distinct and marked by different parameters
altogether. Paras-18 and 19 of the judgment are relevant in the context to
consider and it is held as follows:
“18. The difference would further be evident from of the Amendment Act,
2018. Section 2(1)(i) was substituted by section 4(II), while section 3(1A) was
inserted by section 6(b) of the Amendment Act, 2018. A more substantive
difference would be evident from the definition of „specified value‟ which
focuses on the value of the subject matter of the suit in relation to the
commercial dispute, that is whether the suit qualifies for a commercial suit in
terms of a minimum value in monetary terms. Section 3(1A) on the other hand
is concerned with the pecuniary limits of the Commercial Court within the
territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
19. In other words, while specified value forms the core of the
commercial dispute for admission into the regime of The Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, pecuniary value fixes the competence-parameters of the Court for
receiving a commercial suit. While the former focuses on the value of the
dispute, the latter sets the floor-limit capability of the receiving Court. The
distinguishing features are being repeated in order to avoid confusion between
„specified‟ and „pecuniary‟ values as envisaged in the 2015 Act.”
26. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and after analyzing the
relevant provisions of the Statute, the three questions that are formulated are
answered as follows:
36
A. Sections 2(1)(i) and 3(1A) of the Act are two distinct and separate
provisions and they are not one and the same. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act defines
“Specified Value” which focuses on the value of the subject-matter of the suit in
relation to a commercial dispute to decide whether the said commercial dispute is
to be adjudicated by the Commercial Court or not and Section 3(1A) of the Act,
on the other hand, is concerned with pecuniary limits of the Commercial Courts
when they are being presided over by officers of various cadres. Amending
Section 2(1)(i) of the Act by way of deleting the words “not less than one crore
rupees” and substituting the same with the words “not less than three lakh
rupees” by way of the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 by itself amends the “Specified
Value” as “not less than three lakh rupees” and no separate notification by the
Central Government is required to be given to bring the amendment into force
and to make it operative. The Statute itself has amended the “Specified Value”
as “not less than three lakh rupees”. It is only when the Central Government
intends to fix such higher value, then a separate notification in exercise of its
power of delegated legislation is required to be given by the Central Government
and it comes into force on the date of issuance of notification and publishing in
the Gazette.
B. This question again contains sub-questions (i) to (iii). Sub-questions (i)
and (ii) are interrelated to each other. Therefore, the said two sub-questions are
answered together. The Amendment Act 28 of 2018 relating to Section 2(1)(i) of
the Act shall be operative and effective from the date of amendment itself with
effect from 03-5-2018. No notification is required to be given by the Central
Government to make the said amendment operative and effective and to bring
the same into force. It is only when the Central Government issues notification
fixing the higher value of the Specified Value, then the said higher value comes
into force on the date notified in the notification. As no such notification is issued
by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section
2(1)(i) of the Act, the value fixed as not less than three lakh rupees by the Statute
37under the Amendment Act 28 of 2018 will prevail and it has to be taken into
consideration for deciding the Specified Value of the commercial dispute.
As regards sub-question (iii) is concerned, the Amendment Act 28 of 2018
amending Section 2(1)(i) of the Act has absolutely nothing to do with the
notification to be issued by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise
of its power conferred on it under Section 3(1A) of the Act to specify pecuniary
value. It is made clear and reiterated that “Specified Value” under Section 2(1)(i)
of the Act is altogether different from “pecuniary value” as contained in
Section 3(1A) of the Act and they are two separate and distinct terms which
operate in two different fields.
C. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bellam Balakrishna
(2 supra) held that until the State Government issues a notification in consultation
with the High Court, the pecuniary value of three lakh rupees as fixed in
Section 2(1)(i) of the Act will not come into operation is not correct and the law
has not been correctly laid down to that effect. In fact, Section 2(1)(i) of the Act
does not deal with the pecuniary value. It only defines the “Specified Value”.
Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bellam
Balakrishna (2 supra) that till the notification is issued by the State Government
in consultation with the High Court the pecuniary value as fixed in Section 2(1)(i)
of the Act will not come into operation is not the correct proposition of law laid
down in the said judgment. The controversy involved in this reference as per the
questions that are formulated has not been dealt with in the case of
U.V. Satyanarayana (3 supra). All that is decided in the case of
U.V. Satyanarayana (3 supra) by the other Division Bench of this Court is
whether the Court of Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, which is
a Civil Court, has got jurisdiction to entertain an execution petition in respect of
a commercial dispute arising out of arbitration matters. Therefore, considering
Section 10(3) of the Act which mandates that where the subject-matter of
an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration
38
is other than an international commercial arbitration that all applications arising
out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 would ordinarily lie before any principal civil court of original jurisdiction in
a district shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Court
exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial
Court has been constituted, the Court has held that the execution petition has to
be filed before the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam as the Commercial Court
at Visakhapatnam has territorial jurisdiction over East Godavari District. But, the
Bench which disposed of U.V. Satyanarayana‟s case (3 supra) has completely
missed its attention to a material fact relating to value of the subject matter of the
arbitration to decide whether the subject matter of the arbitration is a commercial
dispute of a Specified Value or not. The execution petition was filed prior to
03-5-2018 on which day the amendment to Section 2(1)(i) of the Act defining
“Specified Value” came into force. Earlier, the Specified Value was above one
crore rupees. So, only when the value of the subject matter of the said
arbitration is above one crore rupees then only it is qualified to be tried as
a commercial dispute in a Commercial Court. The value of the subject matter in
the arbitration is only forty five lakhs. So, it is below one crore rupees.
So, it does not satisfy the definition of “Specified Value” under Section 2(1)(i) of
the Act as per the unamended provision. It is only when the value of the subject
matter is more than one crore rupees and if it is a commercial dispute then only
it comes within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to entertain an execution
petition. Even Section 10 of the Act which was invoked by the Bench clearly
envisages that when the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute
of a Specified Value then the section applies. Section 19 of the Amendment Act
28 of 2018 clearly mandates that the said amendments apply to the transactions
took place only from the date of amendment i.e. 03-5-2018 and the said
amendments will not apply to the past transactions prior to 03-5-2018. So, the
amendment is prospective in nature. As the present transaction relating to the
39
said arbitration is pertaining prior to 03-5-2018 and as the value of the subject
matter is forty five lakhs which is less than one crore rupees it is not qualified to
be taken up by the Commercial Court. The Bench in U.V. Satyanarayana‟s case
(3 supra) did not notice that the Specified Value of the subject matter of the
arbitration is only forty five lakhs which is below the amount of one crore rupees
and it does not satisfy the definition of “Specified Value” under Section 2(1)(i) of
the Act prevailing at that time and it is not qualified to be taken up by the
Commercial Courts. So, to that extent, the law has not been correctly decided in
U.V. Satyanarayana‟s case (3 supra). Therefore, question No.C is answered
accordingly.
The reference is answered accordingly. Registry shall take steps to list the
civil revision petitions before the respective benches to decide the same
according to law.
27. Before parting with the matter, we would like to make certain
observations and also recommendation to the State Government and the High
Court for effective implementation of the Commercial Courts Act as amended to
achieve the object of the enactment. It is noticed that no effect is given to the
amendments that are made to Sections 2(1)(i), 3(1A) and 3(3) of the Act, both by
the High Court and the State Government. Except passing resolutions in terms
of the said amendments and making correspondence by the High Court with the
Government and issuing G.O.Rt.No.609, dated 05-6-2023 by the Government in
response to the letter correspondence made by the High Court, till now the
amendments are not implemented in its true spirit. It is brought to our notice that
still the Specified Value as not less than one crore rupees as per the unamended
provision of Section 2(1)(i) of the Act is being taken into consideration for the
purpose of receiving the suits relating to commercial disputes by the Commercial
Courts in Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. The commercial disputes above
three lakh rupees and up to one crore rupees are not being entertained by the
40
said two special courts. Earlier proceedings of High Court specifying the
Specified Value as not less than one crore rupees is not withdrawn and fresh
proceedings specifying the Specified Value as not less than three lakh rupees is
not yet given. Consequently, the Commercial Courts are not receiving and
entertaining the commercial disputes from above three lakh rupees till one crore
rupees. It is a lapse on the part of the concerned. It is resulting into causing
grave injustice to the litigant public as they could not obtain speedy justice in
respect of the commercial disputes involving Specified Value up to one crore
rupees. Therefore, steps are to be immediately taken by the concerned to issue
fresh proceedings to the two existing Commercial Courts specifying the Specified
Value in terms of the amended Section 2(1)(i) of the Act. The High Court also
has to take steps to direct the presiding officers of the two Commercial Courts to
receive the suits relating to commercial disputes involving value of above three
lakh rupees with effect from 03-5-2018. After fresh proceedings are issued by
the High Court to the two Commercial Courts which are in existence in the State
of Andhra Pradesh at present mentioning the Specified Value as not less than
three lakh rupees in terms of amended Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, the Commercial
Courts shall receive all the commercial suits filed in the said Courts involving
more than three lakh rupees and resolve the same. After issuing such
proceedings, all commercial disputes which are of more than three lakh rupees
value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Courts pending in the ordinary
Civil Courts with effect from 03-5-2018 under Section 15(2) of the Commercial
Courts Act.
28. The State Government may also, in consultation with the High Court,
shall thereafter in case of necessity in view of increase in the pendency of
commercial disputes in the special courts take steps to appoint officers below the
level of District Judge also to preside over the Commercial Courts, in which event
they have to issue notification under Section 3(1A) of the Act specifying the
41
pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher
value for whole or part of the State it may consider necessary. Since the
Parliament conferred the power on the State Governments to confer jurisdiction
to deal with the cases of commercial disputes even on the courts below the level
of District Judge as and when the need arises for establishment of more courts to
reduce the burden on the existing Commercial Courts, which are established at
District Judge level, in case there is increase in the commercial disputes in the
said courts, it is desirable for the State Government to take a decision in
consultation with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to establish more
Commercial Courts even below the level of a District Judge after considering the
pendency of cases in the existing Commercial Courts Act subsequent to issuing
fresh proceedings to the Commercial Courts specifying the Specified Value as
not less than three lakh rupees.
29. To verify as to what steps the High Court and the Government have
taken to give effect to the amendments that are made in the Act to Sections
2(1)(i), 3(1A) and 3(3) of the Act, we have called for the record from the
concerned Registry and we have gone through the same. The record reveals
that after the amendments came into force on 03-5-2018, the Administrative
Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 25-3-2019 made certain
recommendations to the Government by way of passing a resolution. The two
important resolutions among them are the Committee resolved to confer
pecuniary jurisdiction from three lakh rupees to fifty lakh rupees on Commercial
Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judges to be established one court in each
district and further resolved to request the Government to make the 13 existing
Fast Track Courts one in each of the 13 districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh
as permanent Commercial Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge Courts with
pecuniary jurisdiction from three lakh rupees to fifty lakh rupees. Thus, it is now
evident that the said resolution is passed in view of Sections 3(1A) and 3(1)(3) of
42
the Act as amended. Thereafter, the Registry has also addressed various letters
to the Government requesting to establish the said Commercial Courts in the
cadre of Senior Civil Judge Courts below the level of District Judge with the
above pecuniary jurisdiction. But, the Government has only issued a belated
G.O.Rt. No.609 on 05-6-2023 after lapse of four years period from the date on
which the aforesaid resolution was passed, ordering to convert the existing 13
Fast Track Courts as Commercial Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge.
However, para-2 of the said G.O. reads that the pecuniary and geographical
jurisdiction of the converted courts and their headquarters will be decided by way
of issuing orders to that effect separately. Thus, everything is only on paper till
now to implement the amended provisions of Sections 3(1A) and 3(1)(3) of the
Act. Even though the aforesaid G.O.Rt.No.609 was issued about three years
ago on 05-6-2023 to convert the existing 13 Fast Track Courts as Commercial
Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge, till now the said G.O. is not
implemented and the Fast Track Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge are not
converted into Commercial Courts and they are not established and made
functional. The High Court also did not further pursue the matter. It is not
clarified as to why the 13 Fast Track Courts which are converted into Commercial
Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge are not made functional till now. Thus
everything is only on paper and the amendments are not actually implemented in
its true spirit and letter. Therefore, to achieve the object of the amendment, the
High Court is directed to pursue the matter with the Government and the
Government shall also immediately take steps to implement G.O.Rt.No.609,
dated 05-6-2023 and make the said Commercial Courts in the cadre of Senior
Civil Judge functional. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh should also
give notification in terms of Section 3(1A) of the Act specifying the pecuniary
value of the said Commercial Courts in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge as
recommended by the High Court in its resolution dated 25-3-2019 conferring
pecuniary jurisdiction on the said Courts from three lakh rupees to fifty lakh
43
rupees. The Government should give a notification under Section 3(1A) of the
Act fixing the pecuniary limits of the Commercial Courts of the District Judge
cadre also conferring pecuniary jurisdiction on the said Courts from above fifty
lakh rupees with unlimited jurisdiction. As now the Commercial Courts in two
different cadres i.e., at the District Judge level and at the level of Senior Civil
Judge would come into existence, issuance of notification under Section 3(1A) of
the Act conferring pecuniary jurisdiction on the said courts is imperative. The
said notification issued in terms of Section 3(1A) of the Act would be independent
of the A.P. Civil Courts Act and this notification conferring pecuniary jurisdiction
on the Commercial Courts would be issued for the purpose of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. Section 16 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act confers pecuniary
jurisdiction on the ordinary Civil Courts established under the Act whereas
notification to be issued under Section 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act
confers pecuniary jurisdiction on the Commercial Courts established under the
Commercial Courts Act.
___________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
____________________
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
18th May, 2026.
Note:-
L.R. Copy to be marked.
(B/o)
Ak
44HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDCivil Revision Petition Nos.1847/2024, 1172/2022
and 1685, 1686, 1688 and 1689 of 2024
(per CMR, J.)18th May, 2026.
(Ak)
