Full Bench distinguishes “Specified Value” and “Pecuniary Value” in Commercial Courts Act, mandates State notification for lower-value commercial disputes jurisdiction
In a landmark judgment delivered on May 18, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court Full Bench resolved a critical legal controversy concerning the interpretation and implementation of Sections 2(1)(i) and 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as amended by Act 28 of 2018. The case arose from conflicting decisions by coordinate Benches regarding whether the amended specified value threshold for commercial disputes—reduced from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 3 lakhs—became effective automatically or required formal notification by the Central or State Government.
The Full Bench clarified that the terms "Specified Value" and "Pecuniary Value," though seemingly similar, are distinct legal concepts operating in separate domains within the Act. The "Specified Value," defined under Section 2(1)(i), refers to the minimum value of the subject matter in a commercial dispute for it to qualify for adjudication by a Commercial Court. This value was statutorily amended by Parliament in 2018 to "not less than three lakh rupees" and does not require any notification from the Central Government to come into effect. The Court emphasized that the disjunctive "or" in the provision clearly separates the base value fixed by statute from any higher value the Central Government might notify.
Conversely, "Pecuniary Value," introduced by Section 3(1A) through the 2018 amendment, concerns the jurisdictional monetary limits assigned to Commercial Courts, especially when multiple courts at different judicial levels (District Judge level or below) are constituted. The Court held that the State Government must issue a notification, in consultation with the High Court, specifying such pecuniary values to confer jurisdiction on Commercial Courts below the District Judge level. Without such notification, commercial disputes valued between Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore would remain within the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts and not the existing Commercial Courts in Andhra Pradesh, which currently have jurisdiction only over disputes valued above Rs. 1 crore.
The Court further held that the amendment reducing the specified value to Rs. 3 lakhs applies prospectively only from May 3, 2018, and does not affect pending cases filed before that date. Execution petitions arising from such commercial disputes are similarly governed. The judgment explicitly overruled prior conflicting interpretations, notably distinguishing its position from the decision in U.V. Satyanarayana v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., while concurring with Bellam Balakrishna v. Greenmount Developers to the extent that the State Government notification under Section 3(1A) is necessary for operationalizing lower pecuniary jurisdiction.
The judgment also noted administrative delays in implementing the amendments within Andhra Pradesh. Although the State Government issued a G.O. in June 2023 proposing conversion of 13 Fast Track Courts into Commercial Courts for disputes valued between Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs, these courts remain non-functional due to lack of requisite notifications specifying pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court directed prompt action by the State Government and urged the issuance of appropriate notifications under Section 3(1A) to realize the legislative intent of speedy and accessible commercial dispute resolution at various judicial levels.
The Full Bench’s detailed analysis was supported by extensive references to Supreme Court precedents on statutory interpretation, delegated legislation, and the use of non obstante clauses, underscoring the importance of purposive construction to fulfill the statute's objective of expediting commercial litigation in India. The Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, being a special enactment, overrides inconsistent provisions of ordinary civil court laws regarding jurisdiction over commercial disputes.
This judgment provides a clear and authoritative framework for the operation of the Commercial Courts in Andhra Pradesh and other states, balancing the legislative intent to broaden access to commercial dispute resolution with the practical necessities of judicial administration. It mandates that commercial disputes valued at Rs. 3 lakhs and above are within the ambit of Commercial Courts, subject to the issuance of pecuniary jurisdiction notifications by the State Government, thereby clarifying a long-standing procedural ambiguity.
Bottom line:-
Interpretation of Sections 2(1)(i) and 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - "Specified Value" and "Pecuniary Value" are distinct terms, operating in separate domains. Amendment of "Specified Value" to "not less than three lakh rupees" under Act 28 of 2018 does not require a notification for enforcement. Pecuniary value under Section 3(1A) requires notification when jurisdiction is to be conferred on courts below District Judge level.
Statutory provision(s):
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sections 2(1)(i), 3(1), 3(1A), 3(3), 12, 19, 21; Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 28 of 2018) Sections 2(1)(i), 3(1A), 3(3), 19; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sections 6; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 10(3)
