3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

Advertise Login Get a Premium Account Legal Jobs 

Home News Interviews Columns Dealstreet Apprentice Lawyer

Viewpoint India Law Connect

Commercial Courts: Need for a new paradigm

Bar & Bench March 4 2019

https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 1/7
3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

117

Ajit Warrier

In an earlier article, the author had o ered suggestions for the e cient and robust working of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“the 2015 Act”). 

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Bridging the gap between Promise and Reality

This article examines whether a Commercial Court should bear the mantle of an adjudicator whose
participation in the proceedings is con ned to passively presiding over the trial or whether the
presiding judge should take on a more visible and proactive role in the proceedings and, in a sense, re-
de ne the traditionally adversarial court system in India.   

This conundrum has been agitating the judicial conscience in India for several decades now. In Ram
Chander v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India noted that in criminal cases, the courts should
cease to be a ‘spectator’ and a ‘mere recording machine’ and must become a participant in the trial by
evincing intelligent active interest. Justice Chinnappa Reddy, who authored the judgment, posited the
judicial quandary by raising the following questions:

https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 2/7
3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

“What is the true role of a judge trying a criminal case? Is he to assume the true role of a referee in a
football match or an umpire in a cricket match, occasionally answering, as Pollock and Maitland(1) point
out, the question ‘How is that’, or, is he to, in the words of Lord Kenning ‘drop the mantle of a judge and
assume the role of an advocate? (2) Is he to be a spectator or a participant at the trial? Is passivity or
activity to mark his attitude? If he desires to question any of the witnesses, how far can he go? Can he put
on the gloves and ‘have a go’ at the witness who he suspects is lying or is he to be soft and suave?”

The Supreme Court, adverting to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, held that it was the
bounden duty of a judge to discover the truth. 

Almost a decade later, the Supreme Court, in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, dealt with the
question whether a court, faced with withholding of best evidence by a party, should “simply sit as a
mere umpire” or has a legal duty of its own to take an active role in the proceedings in nding the truth
and administering justice. The Supreme Court again reposed its faith in the latter approach.  

This judicial sentiment is not con ned to criminal cases alone, and has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in other categories of cases also.

a.  In Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia and others (2001) 2 SCC 652, the Supreme Court held that
while framing issues, an obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint/petition and the written
statement/counter, if any, and then determine the material propositions of fact or of law on which
the parties are at variance. 
b. In Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 677, it was held that “every trial is a voyage of discovery
in which truth is the quest”.
c. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Supreme
Court expressed its disagreement with the observation of Lord Denning in Jones v. National Coal
Board (1957) 2 QB 55 that in the system of trial prevalent in England, the judge “sits to hear and
determine the issues raised by the parties, not to conduct an investigation or examination on behalf of
[the] society at large, as happens, we believe, in some foreign countries”. The Supreme Court held that
a judge in the Indian system has to play an active role to bring on record a relevant fact and it
must be the endeavour of all judicial o cers and judges to ascertain the truth in every matter.  
d. In A Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam
represented by its President and others (2012) 6 SCC 430, the Supreme Court held that the pleadings
needed to be critically examined by the judge before issuing an ad interim injunction and/or while
framing issues. 

In the author’s view, the 2015 Act provides several ports of call for a presiding judge of the Commercial
Court to engage in discovery of truth. Some of the noteworthy provisions inserted into the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) include the following:

i. Order XI Rule 5 of the Code inter alia empowers the court to order (even suo motu) production by
any party or person of documents in their possession or power, relating to any matter in
question.  
https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 3/7
3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

ii. Order XIII-A of the Code empowers the court to pass a myriad range of orders while deciding on
the passing of summary judgment. In the author’s view, the onus is on the court to adopt creative
and innovative approaches so as to balance the equities between the parties to the litigation,
remove the ‘incentives’ for the adoption of dilatory tactics by a party (or parties), and impart
complete justice.  
iii. Order XV-A of the Code vests the court with wide latitude while dealing with a Case Management
Hearing, including examination of pleadings and documents produced before it, and examination
of the parties under Order X Rule 2 (if required).
iv. The Court may regulate the evidence as to issues on which it requires evidence and the manner in
which such evidence may be placed before the Court (Order XIX Rule 4 of the Code).
v. The Delhi High Court has, by a noti cation dated October 16, 2018, made certain amendments in
the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The new Rule 6, Chapter XI vests the court with the
power to permit, either suo motu, or on an application of any party, an expert witness to testify
and pass appropriate orders for recording of such testimony (including by hot tubbing technique).
It is further provided that the court may appropriately mould the protocol for hot tubbing, based
upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
vi. During the trial, the court has the power to hold further Case Management Hearings at any time
and issue appropriate orders so as to ensure adherence to the timelines and facilitate speedy
disposal of the suit (Order XV-A Rule 5 of the Code).
vii. Under Order XVIII Rule (3F) of the Code, the court has the power to limit the time for oral
submissions. In Roland Corporation v. Sandeep Jain 2019 SCC Online Del 6557, the Delhi High Court
held that the provisions relating to “time limit for completion of trial” in Rule 3 of Order XV-A of
the Code would also apply at a stage where recording of evidence is over and the suit is ripe for
nal hearing.  

The author believes that when the special provisions introduced by the 2015 Act begin to be employed
by the Commercial Courts with greater frequency and creativity, that would, to paraphrase Justice
Chinnappa Reddy’s words in the Ram Chander judgment, enable the judge “like the conductor of a choir”
to “by force of personality, induce his team to work in harmony, subdue the raucous, encourage the timid,
conspire with the young, atter and (sic the) old”. 

The author is a Partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. He specialises in the Dispute Resolution and
Litigation Practice.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist
advice should be sought about your speci c circumstances. Further, the views in this article are the personal
views of the author.

https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 4/7
3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

1 Comment

Add a comment...

Granpaa Tushar Dhrolia

Sir ,
It sounds so good reading this article , the view of Supreme Court in number of Judgements is enlightening , but at
In a suit before Commercial Court at Rajkot , Gujarat , I and my opposite number have argued in the matter almost
single order or judgement , now after learning this fact , do let me know if you have any ideas or means for Courts
Like · Reply · 2d

Facebook Comments Plugin

https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 5/7
3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

Related Articles

August 17, 2018 June 12, 2018 May 15, 2018

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Mandatory Mediation under Amendments to the Commercial
Bridging the gap between Promise Commercial Courts Act – A Boost Courts Act
and Reality to E ective and E cient Dispute
Resolution in India

August 1, 2018 February 19, 2019 October 1, 2018

Delhi HC issues notice in 120-day Limitation Period for Commercial Courts Act: Bombay
challenge to mandatory pre-suit ling Written Statement in HC issues notice in petition
mediation under Commercial Commercial Suits Mandatory, challenging self-defeating,
Courts Ordinance, 2018 Supreme Court [Read Judgment] impractical provisions

To read the entire article, get a premium account

With a premium account you get: Already a subscriber ?

https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 6/7
3/7/2019 Commercial Courts: The need for a new Paradigm

One year of unrestrcited access to

previous interviews, columns and Login
articles
One year access to all archival material
Access to all Bar & Bench reports

Register

About us Advertise on Bar & Bench Careers Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use   

Crafted by Pixelmattic

https://barandbench.com/commercial-courts-need-for-a-new-paradigm/ 7/7