The Delhi High Court has dismissed two connected appeals arising from enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards, holding that appeals against such execution-related orders are not maintainable either under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 or Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined the threshold issue of maintainability of the appeals under the said statutory provisions and answered the question in the negative, holding that the appeals were not maintainable.
The appeals arose from orders passed by the learned Single Judge in enforcement petitions pertaining to awards rendered in two distinct arbitral proceedings. In both matters, the Single Judge Bench permitted the Decree Holder to withdraw the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor as security for the grant of a stay on execution of the award, subject to the furnishing of a bank guarantee, while the enforcement petitions remained pending.
on whether interest on arbitral award amounts continues to accrue after the judgment debtor deposits the awarded sum in court, but before its final release to the decree holder.
A common issue fell for consideration in both petitions, whether interest on arbitral award amounts continues to accrue after the judgment debtor deposits the awarded sum in court, but before its final release to the decree holder. In one matter, the Court accepted the Decree Holder’s claim and awarded interest for the said period. While in other, the Court declined to grant such interest. Therefore, the respective aggrieved parties in both the aforesaid matters preferred the said appeals challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge.
The Division Bench first determined the maintainability of the appeals filed before the Court under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court held that appeals were not maintainable as the proviso to Section 13(1) permits appeals only against orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC or under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court observed that the impugned orders were passed in arbitral award enforcement proceedings and merely dealt with payment or denial of interest, which do not fall within the limited categories of appealable orders. Reference was made to Kandla Export Corpn. & Anr. v. OCI Corpn & Anr, (2018) 14 SCC 715, and HPL (India) Limited v. QRG Enterprises & Anr., FAO (OS) (COMM) 12/2017.
On the issue of maintainability of the appeals under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996 , the Court, while referring to the HPL (India) Limited has held that such appeals are not maintainable, as the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has an overriding effect. The Court noted that Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act begins with a non-obstante clause and expressly bar appeals from orders of a Commercial Division except in the manner provided under that Act. Since Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act falls within the expression “any other law for the time being in force”, it stands overridden.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed both the appeals as being not maintainable.
Appearances
EFA (OS) (COMM) 25/2024
Appellant: Mr.Avinash Trivedi, Adv., Mr.Anurag Kaushik, Adv.
Respondent: Mr.Vikram Jetly, CGSC, Ms.Shreya Jetly, Adv, Mr. Aakash Pathak, GP.
EFA (OS) (COMM) 12/2024
Appellant: Mr.Farman Ali, CGSC, Mr.Taha Yasin, Adv., Ms.Usha Jamwal, Adv.
Respondent: Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv., Mr.Gaurav Puri, Adv., Mr.Sarthak Gupta, Adv., Mr.Kushagra Bali, Adv., Ms.Anju Singh Adv., and Mr.Suman Raj, Adv.
