MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. versus M/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 11 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 10-11-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 531 : 2025 INSC 1300
MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. 
v. 
M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13514 of 2025)
10 November 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether an order rejecting the plaint u/Or.VII r.11 of the CPC is 
appealable u/s.13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Headnotes†
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11; s.2(2) – Appellant filed 
Commercial Suit for recovery of Rs.2.5 Crores – Respondents 
sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant 
had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation 
and Settlement as contemplated under the CC Act – Plaint 
rejected by trial Court – Appellant filed appeal u/s.13(1A) – 
Dismissed by High Court as non-maintainable holding that 
an order rejecting the plaint does not fall within the ambit 
of Or.XLIII, CPC, and therefore, such a challenge could not 
be maintained u/s.13(1A) r/w the proviso – Interference with:
Held: Impugned order quashed and set aside – An order 
rejecting the plaint u/Or.VII r.11 CPC decides the lis finally and 
is a decree within the meaning of s.2(2) CPC – A decree passed 
by a Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge exercising 
original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, the Commercial 
Division of a High Court would ordinarily be appealable before the 
High Court u/s.13(1A) r/w the applicable provisions of the CPC – 
The main provision of s.13(1A) contemplates appeals against 
‘judgments’ and ‘orders’ of the Commercial Court to the Commercial 
Appellate Division of the High Court – The proviso, operating as 
an exception, must be construed harmoniously with the main 
provision and not in derogation thereof – Where the language of 
the main provision is plain and unambiguous, the proviso cannot 
* Author
532
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be invoked to curtail or whittle down the scope of the principal 
enactment, save and except where such exclusion is clearly and 
expressly contemplated – The proviso merely restricts appeals 
against interlocutory orders to those specifically enumerated  
u/Or.XLIII CPC and s.37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – 
Thus, only such interlocutory orders as are expressly specified 
therein would be amenable to an appeal under the proviso; 
orders not so enumerated would not fall within the restricted fold 
of the proviso – Appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court is 
maintainable, restored. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 21]
Interpretation of Statutes – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – 
Proviso to s.13(1A) – Interpretation – Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908. [Para 17]
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11 – Respondents contended that 
the view taken by the High Court holding the appeal to be not 
maintainable is supported by the judgment of the Bombay 
High Court in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works:
Held: The ratio in Bank of India has no applicability to the present 
situation – The said case involved a challenge to an order rejecting 
application(s) u/Or.VII r.10 and Or.VII r.11(d) of the CPC, which 
order(s) are not enumerated u/Or.XLIII of the CPC – Thus, such 
an order would not be amenable to an appeal u/s.13(1A) of the 
CCA, 2015, and rather, can be challenged by filing a revision or 
a petition/application u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as 
the case may be. [Para 18]
Case Law Cited
Bank of India & Ors v. M/s Maruti Civil Works, SLP(C) 6039 of 
2024; Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad [1974] 1 SCR 322 : 
(1973) 2 SCC 524 – referred to.
Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 
2667 – distinguished.
List of Acts
Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Constitution of India.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 
533
MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v.  
M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.
List of Keywords
Section 13(1A), Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Order VII Rule 11 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order rejecting the plaint under 
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is appealable under Section 13(1A) of 
Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Rejection of the plaint; Commercial 
Suit for recovery; Plaint rejected; Decree; Decree within Section 
2(2), CPC; Or.XLIII, CPC; Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and 
Settlement (PIMS).
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13514  
of 2025
From the Judgme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.