Important Point – The appeal is not maintainable.

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. All these appeals can be disposed of by a common order since they are arising out of the common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge.

Preliminary Objection:

2. Mr. Madon, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents in all these appeals has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of these appeals. He submitted that in view of language used in Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to as “Commercial Courts Act”), appeal against the impugned judgment and order will not be maintainable.

3. Before considering the rival contentions, it will be necessary to briefly state the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this preliminary objection.

FACTS:

4. Prior to 1987, a partnership firm was carrying on business in the name and style of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers which was reconstituted from time to time and it was finally reconstituted on 21/02/1980.

5. Sometime in the year 1987, differences arose between the partners of the firm and on 26/03/1987, a deed of dissolution of partnership was executed between the partners and the firm was dissolved with effect from 19/03/1987. A supplemental agreement was also executed on 28/03/1987. Partners agreed to partition and distribute the immovable properties of the said firm amongst the partners.

6. Since there was some dispute regarding distribution, the Arbitration Suit No.1904 of 1992 was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The suit was initially dismissed on the ground of limitation. The matter travelled upto the Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that the suit was within time and the disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator Mr. Justice S.N. Variava (Retd.).

7. The learned Arbitrator passed an Award on 04/08/2008 and in the said Award he was pleased to order and direct partition and distribution of various immovable properties of the firm amongst the partners. For the purpose of deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability of these appeals, it is not necessary to go into details of the manner of distribution of properties.

8. The Award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Petition challenging the said award was dismissed by this Court on 01/10/2009. Being aggrieved by the said Order, an appeal was preferred under Section 37 of the said Act, 1996 by the Bombay Group and Kanpur Group which was also disposed of on 08/03/2013 and therefore the said Award became executable as a decree.

9. Since the distribution did not take place and the Award was not complied with, an Execution Application No.2006 of 2015 under Order XXI of CPC was filed in this Court and the relief was claimed for possession of the Bombay property. Respondent No.16 also filed Execution Application No.1913 of 2015. Thereafter, Notice No.1786 of 2015 was issued under Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC to all the parties in the Execution Application to show cause why the said Award was not executable and why warrant of possession should not be issued. All the parties filed detailed reply to the said notice. Appellants herein opposed and resisted the execution of the Award on the ground that the obligations of the groups in the Award were joint, interlinked and interconnected and to be executed and complied with simultaneously.

10. Mr. Madon, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of these appeals and his contention is that these orders which are passed in execution proceedings are not decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Division nor are orders which are specifically enumerated in subsection (1) of Section 1