A three-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court has settled an important question concerning the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to commercial suits instituted before the law came into force. The Court held that the Act applies to such pending suits even if they were formally converted or re-numbered as commercial suits later.
The judgment was delivered on August 14, 2026, in Yes Bank Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. & Anr., FAO(OS)(COMM) 31/2020. The Bench comprised Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha and Justice Amit Mahajan.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Modi Rubber in 2014 seeking recovery of around Rs.33.13 crore along with interest and damages. The litigation related to credit facilities extended by Yes Bank in connection with a proposed joint venture.
During the pendency of the suit, the Commercial Courts Act came into force on October 23, 2015. The suit, however, continued as an ordinary civil suit. In 2017, Modi Rubber sought amendment of its plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Single Judge allowed the application on March 14, 2019, following which Yes Bank filed an appeal.
The suit and appeal were formally re-numbered as commercial proceedings in 2020. This led to a question over whether Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act governed the appeal.
Court’s Observation
The Bench noted that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act permits appeals only against orders specifically covered by the statutory scheme, including orders listed under Order XLIII of the CPC. An order allowing an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 does not appear in that list.
Justice V. Kameswar Rao, writing the principal opinion with Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, held that the formal re-numbering of a pending commercial suit is only a ministerial act and cannot determine when the Commercial Courts Act becomes applicable.
“The applicability of Section 15(1) cannot be said to be contingent upon re-numbering of the suit or application,” the Court observed. It held that commercial disputes pending when the Act came into force would be governed by the Act from October 23, 2015, irrespective of the later date of formal conversion.
The Bench further held that the Commercial Courts Act, through Sections 13, 15, 16, 21 and 23, sufficiently indicated the legislative intention to restrict appeals against orders not made appealable under the Act.
Separate Opinion by Justice Amit Mahajan
Justice Amit Mahajan agreed that the present appeal was not maintainable, but differed in part from the reasoning of the principal opinion. He held that where a suit is pending before a court that also has jurisdiction as a Commercial Court, non-registration of the suit as a commercial matter may be treated as a technical omission.
However, he drew a distinction for cases where an order is passed by an ordinary civil court before transfer. According to his separate opinion, Section 13's restriction ordinarily concerns orders passed by Commercial Courts or Commercial Divisions.
Decision
The majority held that Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v. FIIT JEE Ltd. & Anr. was not good law to the extent it held that Section 13 did not apply to suits pending when the Commercial Courts Act commenced merely because they were re-numbered later.
The Bench affirmed the approach in Samsung Leasing Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., holding that the Commercial Courts Act applies to suits instituted before its commencement even where conversion or re-numbering occurred later.
The reference was answered accordingly, and the appeal was directed to be listed before the Roster Bench on September 2, 2026, for further proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: Yes Bank Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 31/2020
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha and Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision Date: August 14, 2026
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
