AANCHAL INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. MADHU GUPTA vs BONUS PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED MR. SUFAL SHAH Advocate - N P UDERNANI — 6/2026
Case under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 13. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
MCA - MISC. CIVIL APPEAL (APPEAL FROM ORDER)
CNR: GJAH010010752026
Filing Number
6/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
6/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-2026
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
1-Principal District & Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 31-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AANCHAL INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. MADHU GUPTA
Adv. A UPADHYAY
Respondent(s)
-
1.BONUS PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED MR. SUFAL SHAH Advocate - N P UDERNANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court dismissed Aanchal International's appeal as not maintainable, holding that an order rejecting an application to condone delay in filing a written statement does not fall within the appellable orders specified under Order 43 of the CPC. The court followed the Supreme Court's interpretation in Mitc Rolling Mills that the proviso to Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act restricts appeals of interlocutory orders to only those specifically enumerated, making non-enumerated orders non-appealable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
10-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
09-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
03-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 6/2026
The court dismissed Aanchal International's appeal as not maintainable, holding that an order rejecting an application to condone delay in filing a written statement does not fall within the appellable orders specified under Order 43 of the CPC. The court followed the Supreme Court's interpretation in Mitc Rolling Mills that the proviso to Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act restricts appeals of interlocutory orders to only those specifically enumerated, making non-enumerated orders non-appealable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts