Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Order 43 Rule 1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the LXXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (Commercial Court) in Commercial O.A. No.225/2019. The appellant, Ashish Krishnaswamy, sought to set aside the impugned order. The respondents included Money Focus Infrastructure Products Private Limited, KNK Constructions Private Limited, and Mr. Kikkeri Narayan Krishnaswamy. The court considered the preliminary issue of maintainability of the appeal. The court noted that the impugned order was passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that the remedy of appeal against an order under Section 34 is provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and not under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. The court reasoned that the Commercial Courts Act does not create a separate appellate remedy for arbitration matters, and Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC applies only to appeals from orders under the CPC, not to orders under special statutes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appeal against order under Section 34 of Arbitration Act - Maintainability - Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC - The court examined whether an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Held that the remedy of appeal against an order under Section 34 is exclusively provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and the Commercial Courts Act does not create a separate appellate remedy for arbitration matters. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Order 43 Rule 1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the remedy of appeal against an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is provided under Section 37 of that Act, and not under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Law Points
- Appeal against order under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 is governed by Section 37 of that Act
- not Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015 does not create a separate appellate remedy for arbitration matters
- Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC applies only to appeals from orders under CPC
- not to orders under special statutes
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (02) 36
Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum, Justice
Shri Srinivas Raghavan, Senior Advocate for Shri Rithika Ravikumar, Advocate for appellant; Shri Sameer S.N., Advocate for respondent No.1; Shri Pavan R. Javali, Advocate for respondent No.2
Money Focus Infrastructure Products Private Limited, KNK Constructions Private Limited, Mr. Kikkeri Narayan Krishnaswamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Commercial Court.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Commercial Court in Commercial O.A. No.225/2019.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the order of the Commercial Court refusing to set aside an arbitral award.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court passed an order on 23.10.2019 in Commercial O.A. No.225/2019, which is the subject of the appeal.
Issues
Whether the appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC is maintainable against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the appeal is maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC.
The respondents contended that the appeal is not maintainable as the remedy lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is governed by Section 37 of that Act, and not by Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Commercial Courts Act does not create a separate appellate remedy for arbitration matters, and Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC applies only to appeals from orders under the CPC, not to orders under special statutes.
Judgment Excerpts
The submissions we have heard on the maintainability of this appeal.
The impugned order is passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The remedy of appeal against an order under Section 34 is provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
The Commercial Courts Act does not create a separate appellate remedy for arbitration matters.
Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC applies only to appeals from orders under the CPC, not to orders under special statutes.
Procedural History
The appeal was filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC against an order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Commercial Court in Commercial O.A. No.225/2019. The court heard submissions on maintainability and dismissed the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015: Section 13(1)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 43 Rule 1(q)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34, Section 37
