SHIVANK UDYOG LTD vs SURENDER KAUR

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 + C.R.P. 140/2025 & CM Appls.28140-42/2025 SHIVANK UDYOG LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Bahri, Adv. versus SURENDER KAUR .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition seeks to challenge an interlocutory order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Comm-02,West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(Comm) 383/2024 captioned Surender Kaur v. M/s Shivank Udyog Ltd. 2. The attention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is drawn to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “CC Act”] on the aspect of maintainability of the present Petition. 3. Section 8 of the CC Act sets out that no civil revision petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order. It is apposite to set out Section 8 of the CC Act 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.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI C.R.P. 140/2025 Page 1 of 3 NARAYAN Signing Date:10.05.2025 19:32:50 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Black Diamond 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 Ci