Appeal Against Order U/S 39(2) Arbitration Act Is Not Maintainable U/S 13 Commercial Courts Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), holding that no appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act lies against an order passed under section 39(2) of the Act. The court further held that the appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable against those orders enumerated under Order 43 of the CPC or under section 37 of the Act and that section 39(2) does not fall within that scope. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that “A plain reading of proviso to Sub-Section (1A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2015 specifies that an appeal is maintainable either from the orders of the Commercial Court, which are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Neither Order XLIII of the CPC nor Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for an appeal against the order passed under Section 39(2) of A&C Act”. Background: M/s Kishore Vidyaniketan Society (Appellant) had filed a petition under section 39(2) of the Act seeking a direction to the Respondent (Arbitration and Conciliation Centre) to provide certified copies of the arbitral award without insisting on the deposit of arbitral fees. The Commercial Court dismissed the appeal directing the appellant to comply with order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the Commercial Court's order. The Appellant submitted that the present appeal was maintainable since it arose out of a commercial proceeding related to arbitration. Per contra, the Centre submitted that the appeal was not maintainable as no right of appeal is provided under proviso of section 13(1A) against an order passed under section 39(2) of the Act. Findings: The court noted that an appeal under section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act lies against only orders specified under Order 43 of the CPC or those appealable under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. “A plain reading of proviso to Sub-Section (1A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2015 specifies that an appeal is maintainable either from the orders of the Commercial Court, which are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Neither Order XLIII of the CPC nor Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for an appeal against the order passed under Section 39(2) of A&C Act”, the court held. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kandla Export Corporation where it was held that “Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, with which we are immediately concerned in these appeals, is in two parts. The main provision… provides for appeals from judgments, orders, and decrees of the Commercial Division of the High Court. To this main provision, an exception is carved out by the proviso. The primary purpose of a proviso is to qualify the generality of the main part by providing an exception…” Relying on the above judgment, the court concluded that where no appeal against an order under the Arbitration Act is specifically provided, appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be maintained against such an order. Accordingly, the court dismissed the present appeal stating that no appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act lies against an order passed under section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act. Case Title: M/s Kishore Vidyaniketan Society (R) v. Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Case Number: COMAP No. 487 of 2025 Judgment Date: 13/10/2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 369 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Appeal Against Order U/S 39(2) Arbitration Act Is Not Maintainable U/S 13 Commercial Courts Act: Karnataka High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags