MEENAKSHI GOEL vs YFC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 + C.R.P. 232/2023 MEENAKSHI GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Gupta & Ms. Parinay Gupta, Advocates. versus YFC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition seeks to challenge an order dated 05.06.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Central, Commercial-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(Comm) 600/2023 captioned Meenakshi Goel v. YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2 Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “CC Act”] sets out that no civil revision petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order. Section 8 of the CC Act is set out below: “8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court.” 3. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Black Diamond Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:26.04.2025 C.R.P. 232/2023 Page 1 of 3 13:50:43 Track Parts (P) Ltd. v. Black Diamond Motors (P) Ltd.1 considered the scope of Section 8 of the CC Act and it was held that CC Act expressly bars the remedy of a revision petition filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant extract of the Black Diamond Track Parts (P) Ltd. case is reproduced below: “30.