Yes Bank Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd.

Background

A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao, Chandrasekharan Sudha & Amit Mahajan, JJ.) was constituted to resolve conflicting Division Bench rulings — Brahmos Aerospace (2019) and Samsung Leasing (2017) — on whether Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies to suits instituted before the Act came into force (23.10.2015).

Facts: Modi Rubber (respondent) filed a suit in 2014 for recovery against Yes Bank over credit facility fees. The suit proceeded as an ordinary civil suit even after the Commercial Courts Act commenced. In 2017, Modi Rubber sought to amend its plaint (Order VI Rule 17, CPC), which the Single Judge allowed in 2019. Yes Bank appealed. Only in 2020 did the Division Bench direct the suit/appeal to be renumbered as "commercial."

Key Legal Question

Does a party's "vested right of appeal" (existing when the suit was filed under ordinary CPC rules) survive the later application of the Commercial Courts Act, given that an order under Order VI Rule 17 isn't independently appealable under Section 13(1A) (which only allows appeals from orders listed in Order XLIII CPC)?

Majority View (Kameswar Rao, J., with Sudha, J. concurring)

Rejected the appellant's reliance on Garikapatti Veeraya and Videocon International (that appeal rights vest permanently at institution of suit).

Held that right to appeal is purely a creature of statute, not a natural/vested right immune from legislative change.

Sections 13(2), 15, 21, and 23 of the Act, read together, show the legislature intended to exclude appeals against orders not listed in Order XLIII CPC — even for suits pending before the Act's commencement.

Re-numbering/transfer to the Commercial Division is a ministerial act; the Act applies substantively from 23.10.2015 regardless of when formal renumbering occurs.

Overruled Brahmos Aerospace on this point; affirmed Samsung Leasing.

Conclusion: The appeal against the Order VI Rule 17 order is not maintainable.

Concurring but Separate Opinion (Amit Mahajan, J.)

Agreed with the outcome (appeal not maintainable) but disagreed with parts of the reasoning:

Relied on a Supreme Court ruling (Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering v. SAIL, 2026) to hold that renumbering is only a "ministerial" non-issue where the same court/bench has concurrent jurisdiction over both ordinary and commercial matters (as in Delhi HC).

Took a narrower view on Section 13: the appeal-bar applies only to orders actually passed by a Commercial Court/Division. Orders passed by an ordinary civil court before transfer (in courts lacking concurrent jurisdiction, e.g., District Courts with separate commercial benches) would remain appealable under the old law.

This nuance matters for future cases outside the Delhi HC's dual-jurisdiction structure, though it made no difference to this case's outcome.

Final Outcome

Reference answered: Commercial Courts Act provisions (including Section 13) apply to suits filed before its commencement, even if formally renumbered later.

Brahmos Aerospace declared not good law on this point; Samsung Leasing affirmed.

Appeal listed before the Roster Bench on 02.09.2026 for further proceedings (implicitly, to be dismissed as not maintainable per the reference answer).