JSA successfully advised and represented PhonePe Private Limited (“PhonePe”) in a proceeding between Resilient Innovations Private Limited (“PostPe”) as Appellant and PhonePe as Respondent before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 24917 of 2021 (“Appeal”).
The question under consideration before the Bombay High Court was whether an appeal against an order passed under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) allowing withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”).
PostPe had preferred an appeal challenging the order dated October 22, 2021, passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court wherein PhonePe was granted leave to withdraw an infringement suit filed against PostPe with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action (“Impugned Order”).
The Bombay High Court heard the submissions made by Senior Advocate Mr. Darius J. Khambatta on behalf of PostPe and Senior Advocate Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, instructed by us, on behalf of PhonePe. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Appeal on the grounds of maintainability.
The Bombay High Court held that the Appeal was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act as the Impugned Order was not a “decree” as defined under the Section 2(2) of the CPC. It was held that a liberty granted to file a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is not an adjudication that conclusively determines the rights of parties in respect of any matter in controversy. It further went on to hold that the phrase ‘rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit’ appearing in Section 2(2) of the CPC under the definition of ‘decree’, has been said to mean ‘substantive and procedural rights’ of parties.
JSA team comprised Partner – Manish Jha, Partner – Hormuz Mehta, Senior Associate – Anjali Anchayil, Yohaann Limathwalla, Shruti Dass, and Associate – Ahsan Allana.
Ahsan specialises in disputes in the corporate sector with an emphasis on penal laws and general corporate commercial disputes. He has extensive experience in Disputes relating to dishonour of cheques/promissory notes.