Commercial jurisdiction and reasoned interim orders are mandatory; non-notified transfer and cursory injunctions cannot stand.

In a commercial dispute governed by the Commercial Courts Act and the statutory transfer regime, applications pending before a civil court must be dealt with by the notified Commercial Court, and jurisdiction cannot be created by transfer to a non-notified forum contrary to the statute. The text also stresses that interim judicial orders must record reasons and address material objections, including jurisdictional objections; a cursory, non-speaking order affecting rights such as those relating to a bank guarantee is unsustainable and liable to be set aside for material irregularity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order passed by the Additional District Judge in a commercial dispute was without jurisdiction in view of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the notification constituting the Commercial Court; (ii) Whether the impugned injunction order was unsustainable for want of reasons and for material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the order passed by the Additional District Judge in a commercial dispute was without jurisdiction in view of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the notification constituting the Commercial Court?

Analysis: The dispute was a commercial dispute relating to an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Once the State Government had constituted the Commercial Court and specified the territorial limits, applications of this nature pending before a civil court were required to stand transferred under the statutory transfer provision. The court below was not the notified Commercial Court empowered to deal with such matters, and the transfer of the case to that court could not confer jurisdiction contrary to the statute.

Conclusion: The impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned injunction order was unsustainable for want of reasons and for material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction?

Analysis: Judicial orders are required to disclose reasons and reflect consideration of the rival submissions and relevant issues. The impugned order did not deal with the jurisdictional objection or other material questions and was passed in a cursory manner. Such an order could not be sustained as a proper exercise of judicial power, particularly when it affected rights in relation to a bank guarantee and interim restraint.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable on the ground of absence of reasons and material irregularity.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the impugned injunction order and remitted the matter to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a commercial dispute governed by the Commercial Courts Act, applications falling within the statutory transfer regime must be dealt with only by the notified Commercial Court, and a non-speaking interim order that ignores material objections is unsustainable.

---