India's commercial dispute landscape has been fundamentally reshaped over the last decade. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 created dedicated Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions at the High Court level, with a specific mandate for expedited resolution. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 transferred a class of commercial disputes to the NCLT. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court's docket has grown in complexity, with constitutional questions arising from commercial matters forming a significant proportion of referred cases.
The Commercial Courts Act: A Game-Changer
For disputes with a specified value of ₹3 lakh and above involving commercial transactions, the Commercial Courts Act mandates filing before designated Commercial Courts at the District level or the Commercial Division of the High Court (for matters above the High Court's original jurisdiction threshold). These courts operate under strict case management timelines: written statements must be filed within 30 days (extendable to 120), and the first Case Management Hearing must schedule the entire matter to trial.
The Act introduced the concept of a Summary Judgment — a mechanism borrowed from common law jurisdictions that allows a court to decide a matter summarily without a full trial where there is no real prospect of success for the defending party. This is a powerful tool for claimants with strong documentary evidence in contractual disputes.
High Court Original Jurisdiction vs Appellate Jurisdiction
High Courts in India exercise original civil jurisdiction for higher-value matters (the threshold varies by jurisdiction — typically ₹2 crore in Delhi and Bombay). They also exercise appellate jurisdiction over District Court and Commercial Court decisions. The distinction matters significantly: an original-side High Court proceeding is heard by a Single Judge, while a first appeal from a Commercial Court judgment is heard by a Division Bench.
For arbitration-related proceedings — Section 9 interim relief, Section 34 challenge petitions, Section 36 enforcement — the High Court is the primary forum, and the quality of the High Court bench in your jurisdiction matters enormously.
When Does Supreme Court Litigation Make Sense?
The Supreme Court hears appeals from High Court Division Bench decisions under Article 136 (Special Leave Petitions). Not every case merits escalation. The Supreme Court is appropriate when: (a) there is a genuine question of law of general public importance, (b) there is a conflict of judgment between two High Courts on the same legal point, (c) there has been a manifest error of law that caused serious injustice, or (d) the stakes are high enough to justify the time and cost of Supreme Court litigation (typically ₹10 crore or above in commercial matters).
Many clients approach the Supreme Court as a tactical tool — to secure a status quo stay — rather than as a genuine appellate strategy. This approach has become significantly less successful in recent years as the Court has tightened its interim relief jurisprudence in commercial matters.
Injunctions and Interim Relief: The Real Battleground
In practice, the grant or refusal of interim relief often determines the outcome of commercial litigation. The three-factor test — prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm — is familiar, but its application varies significantly across courts and judges. Courts in Delhi's Commercial Division have become more rigorous in their analysis of irreparable harm in money disputes, holding that financial compensation is generally adequate in contractual matters. Injunctions in IP matters and trade secret cases follow a different jurisprudential trajectory.
Settlement Timing: The Strategic Imperative
Indian litigation is notoriously long. A commercial dispute filed today at the District Court level may take 5–7 years to reach final judgment. This makes settlement timing a core strategic element. The optimal settlement window is typically: (a) after the filing of the written statement (when both parties have disclosed their case), (b) after a favourable interlocutory order (when your negotiating leverage is highest), or (c) immediately before a final hearing (when the respondent's appetite for continued litigation is lowest). A skilled litigation lawyer actively manages this timeline rather than treating settlement as a client-driven initiative.
Practical Note
Satyam Dwivedi appears regularly before the Supreme Court of India and Delhi and Bombay High Courts in complex commercial matters. For strategic advice on pending or prospective litigation, schedule a consultation or read our frequently asked questions.