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

Case disposed

Filing Number

6/2026

Filing Date

17-02-2026

Registration No

6/2026

Registration Date

17-02-2026

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 Section 13
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 104,O43
IA/1/2026 Classification : INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION Section AANCHAL INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. MADHU GUPTABONUS PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED MR. SUFAL SHAH

Petitioner(s)

AANCHAL INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. MADHU GUPTA

Adv. A UPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

BONUS PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED MR. SUFAL SHAH Advocate - N P UDERNANI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

17-04-2026

Disposed

10-04-2026

HEARING

09-04-2026

HEARING

03-04-2026

HEARING

13-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Ahmedabad District All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case