2018 Supreme(SC) 618

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M/s OCI Corporation & Anr. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1661-1663 OF 2018
Decided on : 07-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Primary purpose of a proviso is to qualify the generality of the main part by providing an exception.
Appeals against orders not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII but mentioned in section 37 of Act 1996 can only be made to the Commercial Appellate Division of a High Court. Similarly order referring parties to arbitration u/s 8 as also an appeal rejecting a plea referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 16, Act 1996 would not be appealable u/s 13(1) of the Act, 2015.
Section 13(1), Act, 2015 would not apply to cases covered by section 50, Act 1996
If an appeal lies u/s 50 then only section 13(1) would be attracted as laying down forum for hearing such appeal.
No LPA will lie against orders appealable u/s 50, Act 1996.
Section 21 of Act 2015 will apply only when section 13(1) of Act 2015 applies.
Act 1996 and Act 2015 are best harmonized by giving effect to the special statute i.e. Act, 1996 vis-à-vis the more general statute, Act, 2015 being left to operate in spheres other than arbitration.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statute – Proviso – Primary purpose of a proviso is to qualify the generality of the main part by providing an exception. (Para 14)

       1959 Supp (2) SCR 256 – Relied upon

       (b) Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1) r/w XLIII, Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 37, 8 and 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Orders not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII not appealable – In such case appeals mentioned in section 37, Act 1996 can only be made to the Commercial Appellate Division of a High Court – Order referring parties to arbitration u/s 8 as also an appeal rejecting a plea referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 16, Act 1996 would not be appealable u/s 13(1) of the Act. (Para 15, 16)

       (c) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 50 – Section 50 is a provision contained in an exhaustive self contained code – Carries a negative import – Therefore section 13(1), Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 would not apply to cases covered by section 50. (Para 21, 22)

       (2011) 8 SCC 333; (1962) 3 SCR 497 – Relied upon

       (d) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 50 r/w section 13, Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts – If an appeal lies u/s 50 then only section 13(1) would be attracted as laying down forum for hearing such appeal. (Para 23)

       (2008) 4 SCC 91; (2016) 9 SCC 524 – Relied upon

       (e) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 50 – Appeal in matters of foreign awards provided in section 50 and not Letters Patent – Hence such appeals will lie u/s 50 and not Letters Patent. (Para 26)

       (f) Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 – Section 21 and 13(1) – Section 21 will apply only when section 13(1) applies. (Para 27)

       (g) Interpretation of statute – Harmonious construction – Section 50, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and section 13(1), Act 2015 – Object of both Acts – Speedy resolution of commercial disputes involving high amount of money – Providing an appeal u/s 13(1) where section 50 goes not provide so would further delay resolution and defeat object of both the Acts – The two statutes best harmonized by giving effect to the special statute i.e. Act, 1996 vis-à-vis the more general statute, Act, 2015 being left to operate in spheres other than arbitration. (Para 28)

       Facts of the case:

       The present appeals raise an important question as to whether an appeal, not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is nonetheless maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.

       On 28th April, 2014, an arbitration award was passed pursuant to Arbitration Rule No.125 of the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) directing the Appellants, who were the sellers, to pay the Respondents, who were the buyers, a sum of US$ 846,750 together with compound interest at the rate of 4% calculated at quarterly rests. In appeal, by an order dated 16th April, 2015, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to pay a sum of US$ 815,000 together with compound interest at the rate of 4% calculated at quarterly rests.

       The Appellants filed an appeal before the Queen’s Bench. However, the said appeal came to be rejected. Against the aforesaid judgment, the Appellants filed an appeal before the Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, which was rejected. The Appellants filed yet another appeal before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in U.K. The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal.

       Meanwhile an Execution Petition was filed by the Respondents before the District Court. The Appellants filed their objections to the said petition. The Respondents preferred an application before the High Court, under Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, for an appropriate order to transfer the execution petition to the High Court which was allowed and a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed.

       The High Court dismissed the objections that were filed by the Appellants and allowed the execution petition filed by the Respondents.

       The Appellants filed an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

       Finding of the Court:

       If an appeal lies u/s 50 then only section 13(1) would be attracted as laying down forum for hearing such appeal.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.