Company Law

Subject matter jurisdiction of commercial courts

The subject matter of jurisdiction of commercial courts includes any type of dispute emerging from all types of commercial agreements and contracts.

The range of commercial disputes includes:

(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;

(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;

(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;

(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;

(v) carriage of goods;

(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;

(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;

(viii) franchising agreements;

(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;

(x) management and consultancy agreements;

(xi) joint venture agreements;

(xii) shareholders agreements;

(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;

(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;

(xv) partnership agreements;

(xvi) technology development agreements;

(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;

(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;

(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum;

(xx) insurance and re-insurance;

(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above

Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Fees of 5,00,000 plus GST fees for 3 months of resolution professional reasonable in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

In the case of Devarajan Raman v. Bank of India Limited, the appellant challenged the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that dismissed their appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) reducing the costs and fee quoted by the appellant in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The NCLAT had observed that the appellant’s fee of Rs. 5,00,000 plus GST for the entire period of about three months as Resolution Professional (RP) was reasonable, and the expenses had been allowed in full. The appellant argued that the figures accepted by the financial creditor had not been assessed or analyzed properly by the NCLT and NCLAT. The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of a registered valuer was already established in a previous judgment and remanded the case to the NCLT to consider the claim again.

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 975
(Civil Appeal No. 3160 of 2020)
JANUARY 05, 2022

Evaluation of resolution plans

In August 2019, Allahabad Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor. After the formation of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in September 2019, the Interim RP invited Expression of Interest (EOI) from prospective Resolution Applicants, and four EOIs were received. After evaluating the Resolution Plans submitted by the four prospective Resolution Applicants, the CoC invited Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (PPIPL) and Ngaitlang Dhar for negotiations of the bid. The minutes of the 5th meeting of the CoC held on 11th February 2020 revealed the anomalies and deficiencies observed in the Resolution Plan of PPIPL, which was intimated to them, and the PPIPL submitted the rectified Resolution Plan after the deadline. The CoC invited PPIPL and Ngaitlang Dhar for negotiations, and the representative of PPIPL requested an adjournment, which was refused, and the meeting was held on 12th February 2020.

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that the NCLAT has grossly erred in interfering with the decision of the CoC, which was duly approved by the NCLT. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the NCLAT, dated 19th October, 2020 is quashed and set aside.”

[2021] 9 S.C.R. 1009 1009
(Civil Appeal Nos.3665-3666 of 2020)
DECEMBER 17, 2021