The Supreme Court today(September 24) suggested that the government can bring an amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to state the execution in commercial suits will be as per the Commercial Court Rules, which have remained unnotified since 2021. The Court proposed that the Rules can be made part of the Act by inserting a Schedule.

The draft Commercial Court Rules were not notified because the Union Government stated that it may be in conflict with certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now, the Court has suggested that through an amendment in the 2015 Act, the draft Rules can be notified.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran has been hearing a matter concerning the disposal of pending execution petitions across the country. To recall, on March 6, 2025, the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to collate data on the pendency of execution petitions across the District Courts nationwide. It appointed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan as amicus in this case.

The Supreme Court had set a six-month deadline to dispose of execution petitions.

During the proceedings, the Court was told that the draft Commercial Court Rules, 2021, which propose the establishment of the District Execution Cell in all District Courts, would be an effective method for faster execution in commercial suits.

The Union had argued that it was not notified as it conflicts with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the Union is considering bringing amendments to the Commercial Court Act, 2015 to include the draft Rules, and corresponding amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure will also have to be undertaken. Another advocate pointed out that Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act has an overriding provision, so the conflict with CPC may not arise, and the draft Rules can be notified for the commercial suits.

To this, Justice Pardiwala suggested: "You all can say in the Act itself that the execution shall be in accordance with the Schedule and you can introduce a schedule which can become a part of the Act. But you will have to do it."

Sankaranarayanan also made some suggestions to address the issues where suits are pending. He stated that, in pending suits, the parties can themselves declare their assets. However, on this, Justice Chandran remarked that it may not work out because when a suit is without a decree, the parties can't be asked to give details of their assets. Justice Pardiwala also said for now, the bench will not go into this aspect.

Ultimately, the Court didn't pass any orders as it stated that on October 7, it will receive revised figures on the pending execution petitions from the High Courts on the progress of the last 6 months. However, it stated that calling for figures every 6 months will not solve the problem and a mechanism will have to be devised at the High Court level to dispose of the execution petitions expeditiously.

Background

The Supreme Court had earlier questioned the Centre's refusal to notify the draft Commercial Rules 2021, which provide for seprate execution cells for decrees in commercial courts.

Rule 51 talks about the constitution of District Execution Cells by the High Courts, which shall function under the Nyaya Mitra Scheme of the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, GOI. It is under the administrative control of the Principal District Judge and comprise of 1. Member Secretary-a retired Judicial Officer/any retired officer of Class I with legal background, 2. Member(Banking), 3. Member(Revenue) and 4. Member(Police).

The Court, in its order passed in May this year, asked why these rules remain unnotified. Alternatively, it said that if the Union is not inclined to notify the draft Rules, the High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 227 may consider establishing the District Execution Cells.

However, subsequently, the Union, through MoLJ filed an affidavit stating the Draft Rules would overlap with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had submitted that a Committee has been constituted to look into this issue and advise that necessary amendments may be carried out in the Schedule to the 2015 Commercial Court Act.

Case Details: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS Versus V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC|MA 1889-1891/2025 in C.A. No. 3640-3642/2025 Diary No. 59338 / 2025