JUDGMENT & ORDER : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The petitioners - original defendants have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara, in Commercial Trademark Suit No.8 of 2017. The petitioners have also challenged the validity and vires of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 ("the Act" for short). 2. The factual matrix of the present petition is as under: 2.1 The present respondent No.1 - original plaintiff has filed the suit being Commercial Trademark Suit No.8 of 2017 pending on the file of the Commercial Court at Vadodara, in which, it is stated that the plaintiff is a Company incorporated as per the laws of Israel. It has established its business in Israel and is engaged in the business of providing dealers/merchants either directly or indirectly with the best-in-class equipment and services for the mapping, processing and trading of diamonds and other gemstones. It has invented the "Advisor TM" software which is the world's most widely used rough gemstone planning software. The said software integrates internal inclusion scanning information and geometrical 3D analysis and object of the said software is to generate an optimal planning and polishing plan so that maximum value can be derived from the rough stone. The said software computer programmes are recognized as literary works in both the USA and Israel and the plaintiff is having valid subsisting copyright in the said software. The suit is filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and for further directions under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1967. The said software computer programmes are recognized as literary works in both the USA and Israel and the plaintiff is having valid subsisting copyright in the said software. The suit is filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and for further directions under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1967. The plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs in the said suit: "(i) a decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, related parties, officers, directors, representatives, agents, distributors, assigns, nominees and customers restraining them from using, distributing, selling, offering for sale any inclusion scanning services that infringe the Plaintiff's copyright as well as any future machine/device that incorporates the copyrighted software of the Plaintiff and infringes the copyright of the Plaintiff in its AdvisorTM software, for which copyright subsists under common law and also version 6.0 whereof, the code for which also includes programming from previous versions, has been registered in the USA as copyright No.TX 8252522; (ii) a decree of mandatory injunction be passed directing the Defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, related parties, officers, directors, representatives, agents, distributors, assigns, nominees, and customers to: (a) deliver to the Plaintiff's attorneys or its nominated representatives, for the purposes of destruction, all devices, hardware, software, computers, hard disks, pen drives, CDs etc. and all other devices which store the pirated software of the Defendants and which violate the Plaintiffs rights inter alia in its copyright in the Advisor TM software (all versions), whether registered or subsisting under common law; and (b) recall all infringing components/elements, semi manufactured products, product(s) manufactured which incorporate the Plaintiff's software and which violate the Plaintiff's copyright in the Advisor TM software (all versions), which have been distributed, used and sold by the Defendants at its own costs. (iii) an order for rendition of accounts of the Defendants in respect of the gross sales and revenue figures for last 5 years qua the infringing/pirated software which has been used, sold and distributed by the Defendants; (iv) a decree of damages of Rs. 50,00,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Crores Only) be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. (iii) an order for rendition of accounts of the Defendants in respect of the gross sales and revenue figures for last 5 years qua the infringing/pirated software which has been used, sold and distributed by the Defendants; (iv) a decree of damages of Rs. 50,00,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Crores Only) be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The Plaintiff submits that the valuation of damages is in approximate figures and on the complete disclosure of revenues earned by the Defendants in terms of prayer (iii) above, the Plaintiff craves leave to claim further damages and undertake to pay further court fee as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court; (v) costs of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiffs;" 2.2 The plaintiff - respondent No.1 filed Exh.5 application seeking interim injunction. The petitioners - original defendants have filed written statement denying various allegations made against them in the suit. The reply to Exh.5 application was also submitted by the defendants. After hearing both the sides, the Commercial Court, Vadodara, rejected the injunction application Exh.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed Appeal from Order No.310 of 2017 before this Court which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2017. This Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the order passed by the Commercial Court and directed to decide Exh.5 application afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Against the said order, the petitioners - original defendants filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5772 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 16.03.2018. 2.3 Thereafter, various applications were filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendants before the Commercial Court. The plaintiff filed application Exh.88 whereas the defendants filed application Exh.98. The learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara, by the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 passed below Exhs.88 and 98 disposed of both the applications and issued certain directions. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners - original defendants have filed the present petition challenging the said order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara. The petitioners have also challenged the validity and vires of Section 8 of the Act. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar with learned advocate Mr. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners - original defendants have filed the present petition challenging the said order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara. The petitioners have also challenged the validity and vires of Section 8 of the Act. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar with learned advocate Mr. Manan A. Shah for the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Malhotra with learned advocates Mr. Sandeep Grover, Mr. Ishwar Upneja and Mr. Dilip B. Rana for respondent No.1. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing for the petitioners - original defendants assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, mainly on the ground that in the impugned order, learned Judge has given direction contrary to the orders dated 12.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 28.02.2018 and 04.05.2018 passed by his Predecessor. It is submitted that the earlier orders passed by the Predecessor of the present learned Judge of Commercial Court are in complete compliance of the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by this Court in Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate referred the averments made in application Exh.5 as well as the relief’s prayed for in the application Exh.5 and submitted that respondent No.1 - original plaintiff has claimed the ownership in copyright in the software Advisor under the common laws and statutory rights as registered copyright work in Advisor Version 6.0. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate referred the averments made in application Exh.5 as well as the relief’s prayed for in the application Exh.5 and submitted that respondent No.1 - original plaintiff has claimed the ownership in copyright in the software Advisor under the common laws and statutory rights as registered copyright work in Advisor Version 6.0. Thereafter, the learned Senior Advocate referred Paragraph-4.2 of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by this Court in Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017 and contended that this Court directed vide the said order dated 21.12.2017 in Paragraph-7 that "...the matter is remanded to the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara for deciding the application Exh.5 afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits, however, while deciding the application Exh.5, the learned Judge, Commercial Court to call upon the plaintiff and the defendants to provide their respective source code and object code of their respective software to the Court and the Court may send the same to some impartial and independent expert for comparison with the source code and object code of the plaintiff." At this stage, it is submitted that the Commercial Court, thereafter, passed an order on 12.02.2018 below Exh.71 and in Paragraph-12 directed the Court Commissioner to furnish the source code and object code of the defendants' software "Work Manager" in a sealed cover on 21.02.2018. The plaintiff was also directed to submit the certified copy of the copyrighted software's source code and object code in a sealed cover on 21.02.2018. 4.2 Learned Senior Advocate thereafter referred the order dated 28.02.2018 passed below Exh.78 by the learned Judge, Commercial Court and, more particularly, referred Sub-Paragraph-3 of Paragraph6, wherein it has been observed that the plaintiff was directed to furnish on affidavit that whatever source code and object code is registered, the same has been furnished to the Court Commissioner. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate from the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, below Exh.92 that in Paragraph-4 of the said order, it has been specifically observed that "Having considered the submissions, in these circumstances, it is made clear that the expert shall compare registered object code and source code of the software of the plaintiff with the defendants' software. The other material/additional material (which is not in accordance to the orders of the court) produced by the plaintiff in the sealed cover need not to be considered by the expert. It is made clear that this Court has passed the orders for comparison of the source code and object code in respect of registered version of the plaintiff. The orders dated 12.02.2018 and 28.02.2018 passed by this Court and the order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court be complied with in letter and spirit. It is again made clear by the court that at the time of deciding the logistic for comparison of source and object code, the Court will decide that what material is required to be sent for comparison in compliance of the orders." Learned Senior Advocate, at this stage, would contend that all the aforesaid orders passed by the Predecessor, whereby the plaintiff was directed to submit the certified copy of its copyright work for comparison and to file an affidavit that whatever is submitted is a registered work, have been overruled by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, in the impugned order by giving direction that the expert may compare the source code and object code of the defendants with that of the plaintiff's source code and object code in the Advisor software (all previous and existing) whether registered or otherwise. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the directions issued by the Predecessor in four different orders and, therefore, this Court may quash and set aside the same. 4.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar submits that subject of the application Exh.98 was only on the logistic arrangements and direction as to how in Indian scenario the Literary work needs to be compared as prayed in Paragraph-7 (d) & (e) and the modus operandi on the arrangement to facilitate comparison and also, which documents need to be sent in view of additional material submitted by the plaintiff. Thus, through the logistic application, it was only to be decided that in terms of additional material being supplied by respondent No.1 - plaintiff in terms of earlier orders, in fact in view of non-compliance of earlier orders by respondent No.1 - plaintiff, as to submission of the source code, what all need to go for comparison in compliance of the earlier orders and issue directions thereto on the logistics as to how the expert will collect material, how the comparison to be carried out and how the report is to be submitted among other such issues. However, while disposing of the logistic arrangement as suggested by both the parties, the learned Judge, Commercial Court re-adjudicated the settled issues and, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. 4.4 At this stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners - original defendants contended that by the plaintiff's own claim made after testing and securing the defendants' source code, in a mail sent to the expert in Paragraph-5 states that "It is also an undisputed fact that the files generated using Defendants' software cannot be opened in Advisor Version 6.0, but can be opened only in Advisor Versions 4.7 and 5.3." These facts have also been stated by the technical expert and the same is clear from the report of the Court Commissioner placed at Exh.89. Thus, respondent No.1 - plaintiff came to know about the same only on 17.03.2018 when the Court Commissioner and Expert from respondent No.1 - plaintiff came to the premises of the petitioners - defendants to secure the source code of the petitioners so as to place before the Court for comparison. It is submitted that the Advisor Version 6. is only registered and other two versions are not registered. In fact, the plaintiff has not filed certified copy of the registered work as directed by the Commercial Court in its order dated 12.02.2018. 4.5 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Malhotra appearing for respondent No.1 - original plaintiff has supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara, in the impugned order and submitted that the petitioners - original defendants had sought identical relief in their application Exh.91. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Malhotra appearing for respondent No.1 - original plaintiff has supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara, in the impugned order and submitted that the petitioners - original defendants had sought identical relief in their application Exh.91. The learned Trial Court disposed of the said application with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties by order dated 04.05.2018 by observing that in view of the consensus at bar, the application is disposed of with a direction that the defendants are at liberty to raise all these points at the time of arguing the application Exh.5 and its all the contentions raised in the application are kept open to be considered and agitated at the time of hearing of the application Exh.5. Thus, in view of the said order, it is not open for the petitioners - defendants to raise the same issue. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 - original plaintiff referred various averments made in the plaint and the relief’s prayed for in the suit and, thereafter, contended that the plaint is not confined to the protection of infringement of only registered version of the "Advisor TM" software, but the plaintiff has sought protection against the infringement of versions of its "AdvisorTM" software. It is contended that by virtue of India and Israel being signatories to the 'Berne' convention, the plaintiff is entitled to protect infringement of its copyright in "AdvisorTM" software (all versions thereof), irrespective of whether or not the same is registered with any authority, as stated and explained in the plaint. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate referred and placed reliance upon the averments made in Paragraphs-8, 19, 30, 39, 42, 44, 45 and the prayer clause of the plaint. He also placed reliance upon the averments made in application Exh.5. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 - plaintiff thereafter submits that in the written statement, the petitioners - original defendants have expressly stated that they are using Advisor software legitimately as per the End User License Agreement for the same. However, respondent No.1 - original plaintiff categorically denies that there is any licence provided by respondent No.1 - original plaintiff in favour of the petitioners - defendants in respect of any version of Advisor software. However, respondent No.1 - original plaintiff categorically denies that there is any licence provided by respondent No.1 - original plaintiff in favour of the petitioners - defendants in respect of any version of Advisor software. However, the admission of the petitioners - defendants in the written statement estops the petitioners to take contradictory stand. Further, till date, the petitioners - defendants have not produced the licence issued by respondent No.1 - original plaintiff. 5.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Malhotra would contend that the exercise of comparison and analysis of the source code and object code of the plaintiff's software and defendants' purported software is being carried out in pursuance to and in compliance of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017. Learned Senior Advocate referred Paragraphs-6 and 6.1 of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Appeal From Order and contended that the said order clearly records that the petitioners - original defendants were found to be using Advisor software Version 4.7. Thus, the petitioners - defendants are estopped from contending that the comparison has to be undertaken only for the registered software of respondent No.1 - plaintiff. It is submitted that the aforesaid order has attained finality as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the petitioners. 5.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Malhotra further submits that while disposing of the application Exh.92 by order dated 04.05.2018, the Trial Court has specifically observed in Paragraph-7 that the pleas of both the parties are kept open to be agitated at appropriate time. Thus, the said order clearly stipulates that at the time of deciding the logistic for comparison and analysis of source code and object code, the Trial Court will decide as to what material is required to be sent for such comparison and analysis. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error while issuing directions in the impugned order. 5.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Malhotra thereafter submitted that while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court, scope of judicial review is very limited and the orders passed by the subordinate Courts can be interfered with only in certain circumstances. 5.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Malhotra thereafter submitted that while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court, scope of judicial review is very limited and the orders passed by the subordinate Courts can be interfered with only in certain circumstances. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , in support of this contention. 5.5 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Malhotra appearing for respondent No.1 - plaintiff, therefore, urged that the learned Judge, Commercial Court, has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, this Court may not exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby dismiss the present petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it emerges that respondent No.1 - plaintiff has filed the suit being Commercial Trademark Suit No.8 of 2017 which is pending before the Commercial Court at Vadodara. The said suit has been filed alleging that the petitioners - defendants have violated the copyright of the "Advisor TM" software invented by the plaintiff. The suit is filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and for further directions under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is specifically averred in the plaint that "Advisor TM" software (all versions) combines three-dimensional modeling and advanced mathematical algorithms which aid the planning of rough gemstones. The plaintiff has invested a significant amount of time, effort and resources in research and development in order to create the said "Advisor TM" software. The copyright in this software is being infringed by the defendants. Even in the relief’s prayed for in the plaint, there is a specific reference with regard to the "Advisor TM" software (all versions) whether registered or subsisting under common law. 7. It is further revealed that when the application Exh.5 for injunction filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was rejected, it had filed Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 21.12.2017. 7. It is further revealed that when the application Exh.5 for injunction filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was rejected, it had filed Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 21.12.2017. In the said order, it has been observed by the Division bench that the defendants are ready to provide the source code and object code to the Court and the Court may send the same to any impartial and independent expert for comparison of the source code and object code of the plaintiff. It is further observed that when the local Commissioner was appointed, the local Commissioner pointed out that the defendants were using Advisor software 4.7. However, the defendants claimed that they were having a valid user license. However, such a valid user license is not forthcoming. Thereafter, it has been observed that the source code or object code of the plaintiff and the defendants' software are required to be compared by calling upon both of them to provide their respective source code and object code, which can be sent to any impartial and independent expert for comparison. After observing the same, this Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on application Exh.5 and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for considering the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. 8. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the orders dated 12.02.2018 passed below Exh.71, order dated 21.02.2018 passed below Exh.74, order dated 28.02.2018 passed below Exh.78 and order dated 04.05.2018 passed below Exh.92, in support of their contention that in all the aforesaid orders, the Predecessor of the present learned Judge, Commercial Court, has considered about the copyrighted software's source code and object code of the plaintiff. The copyrighted software is 6.0 and not 4.7 and 5.3. In spite of that the learned Judge, Commercial Court, in the impugned order observed that the expert may compare the source code and object code of the defendants with that of the plaintiff's source code and object code in the "Advisor TM" software (all previous and existing) whether registered or otherwise and, therefore, such direction is contrary to the earlier orders passed by the Predecessor. However, with regard to the said contention, it is required to be observed that the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 21.12.2017 specifically observed that when the local Commissioner was appointed, he pointed out that the defendants were using Advisor software 4.7, but they were having a valid user license. It was also observed that the source code and object code of the plaintiff and defendants are required to be compared by calling upon both of them to provide their respective source code and object code, which can be sent to any impartial and independent expert for comparison. The said order has attained finality and, therefore, even the Trial Court, while passing the order dated 04.05.2018 below Exh.92, recorded that the expert shall compare registered object code and source code of the software of the plaintiff with that of the defendants' software. It is also recorded that the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the High Court be complied with in letter and spirit. Thereafter, in last paragraph, it has been observed that the pleas of both the parties are kept open to be agitated at appropriate time. While passing the impugned order, the learned Judge, Commercial Court, has considered all the aforesaid aspects as well as considered the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017 as well as order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.4468 of 2018 and, thereafter, observed that each order is required to be read in its entirety and not in part and piecemeal because, in the subsequent paragraph of the order below Exh.92, the parties to the suit have been directed to comply with the orders dated 12.02.2018, 28.02.2018 of the Commercial Court as well as the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by this Court while reserving and leaving the parties to raise and agitate their submissions so as to decide the logistics for comparison of source code and object code sought to be sent in compliance of the order. It is, thereafter, specifically observed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, in Paragraph-19 of the impugned order that "it is explicitly made clear not only from aforesaid order passed by my Ld. It is, thereafter, specifically observed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, in Paragraph-19 of the impugned order that "it is explicitly made clear not only from aforesaid order passed by my Ld. Predecessor but also made it clear that the entire exercise of comparison and analysis of source code and object code of the plaintiff's software and defendants' software is required to be carried out pursuant to and in compliance of the afore-dated orders mentioned hereinabove passed below Exh.92 and particularly the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017 preferred by the plaintiff wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to order to compare the source code and object code of the plaintiff's software (instead of registered) source code and object code of the plaintiff's software. Thus the order passed below Exh.92 has been in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Appeal From Order No.310 of 2017...." 9. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, upon which the reliance is placed by the learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 - plaintiff. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles for exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court in Paragraph62 as under: "62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh and the principles in Waryam Singh have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh, followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality." 10. From the aforesaid decision, it can be said that the High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words, the jurisdiction has to be exercised very sparingly. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have considered the reasoning recorded by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, in the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.05.2018 in Special Civil Application No.737 of 2018, rendered in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Union of India, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has considered the aspect of maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interlocutory order passed by the subordinate Court/Commercial Court. The Co-ordinate Bench has observed in Paragraphs-11 and 11.2 of the said judgment as under: "11. Union of India, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has considered the aspect of maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interlocutory order passed by the subordinate Court/Commercial Court. The Co-ordinate Bench has observed in Paragraphs-11 and 11.2 of the said judgment as under: "11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respondents that if against the interlocutory order passed by the subordinate Court/Commercial Court, the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is held to be entertainable, in that case, the same shall be against the object and purpose of establishment of Commercial Courts, i.e. speedy disposal of commercial disputes and it would open the flood-gates of such litigation is concerned, such submission has not been accepted by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. And Others v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, (2007) 9 SCC 625 ; Zee Telefilms Ltd. And Another v. Union of India And Others, (2005) 4 SCC 649 ; Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee And Another v. C.K.Rajan And Others, (2003) 7 SCC 546 , and K. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose And Others. 11.1 xxx xxx xxx 11.2 In the case of Coal India Ltd. And Others v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that only because there is a possibility of flood-gate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such argument appears to be an argument desperation. In Paragraph-19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "19. The floodgate argument also does not appeal to us. The same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only because, there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties." 12.1 Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the subordinate Court/Commercial Court. 13. This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties." 12.1 Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the subordinate Court/Commercial Court. 13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the learned counsel appearing for the parties have advanced their arguments on the validity of the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court and we have heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record as well as the order dated 01.06.2018. Learned advocates have not made any submissions with regard to the validity of the provisions of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the validity of the provisions of the aforesaid Section in the present petition. However, it is kept open to consider such issue in appropriate case. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the petition so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara, below applications Exhs.88 and 98. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.