The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act 2018, notified on 21 August 2018, has been made effective from 3 May 2018 to give continued effect to the Ordinance which it replaces.

It provides for the following key amendments to the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015:

• The specified value of a commercial dispute has been reduced to Rs. 3 Lakhs from Rs. One Crore. (Section 2(1)(i) amended)
• For the territories over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State government may, after consultation with the respective High Courts, establish Commercial Courts at the District Judge level provided that in such case the State Government may, by notification, specify the pecuniary value which shall not be less than 3 lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts. (Proviso to Section 3(1) amended)
• The State government may, after consultation with the respective High Court, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than 3 lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State. (New Section 3(1A) inserted)
• The State Government  may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the judge of a Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a court below the level of a District Judge. (Section 3(3) amended)
• Except the territories over which the High Court has original jurisdiction, the State government may, after consultation with the respective High Courts, establish Commercial Appellate Courts at the District Judge level. (New Section 3A inserted)
• Section 13 amended as under:
  • (1) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of 60 days from the date of such judgment or order.
  • (1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be Commercial Division of a High Court, may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of 60 days from the date of the judgment or order. Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by this Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
• Chapter IIIA / Section 12A inserted to provide for a Pre-Institution Mediation (PIM) process in cases where no urgent, interim relief is contemplated, so as to provide an opportunity to parties to resolve the commercial disputes outside the ambit of the courts through the authorities (to be notified by Central government) constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Central Government will also make rules and procedures for PIM. The mediation process shall be completed within 3 months from the date of application by plaintiff. The settlement arrived by the parties through PIM shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award under Section 30(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Recent judicial pronouncements indicate that the higher judiciary is also focused on effective implementation of the legislative mandate. Some notable examples are:

• Separate complexes for Model Commercial Courts is absolutely necessary to achieve the laudable object behind the legislation [Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. The State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC Online Raj 1998].
• The requirement of filing written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons is mandatory [SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC Online SC 226].
• Under the Commercial Courts Act, the admission or denial affidavit should be fair, bona fide and not with an intention to prolong trials. Documents like e-mail correspondences, legal notices, replies, internet printouts etc. should not be denied [Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani, (2018) 253 DLT 93].
• Commercial Courts should not frame issues pedantically [Tullio Giusi Spa v. House of Trims Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC Online Del 9656].
• Late filing of documents cannot be allowed under Commercial Courts Act, unless good cause has been established [Nitin Gupta v. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Limited, 2019 SCC Online Del 8367].