S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. These commercial appeals challenge an order passed by a learned single Judge on 20-8-2018 in Chamber Summons (Lodging) No.1167 of 2018 in Execution Application No.2113 of 2018. This order reads as under :-

“1. This is a Chamber Summons in execution of an interim order made by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). The operative portion of the interim order is from pages 98 to 101. There is a specific finding against the Respondents and an order that they must jointly and severally deposit an amount of Rs.190 crores within four weeks or alternatively furnish a bank guarantee. There are also injunctions granted in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the operative portion. Clause (f) is an order of disclosure. The injunctions in terms of clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the interim order will necessarily have to continue as injunctions of this Court in this Chamber Summons. The order of disclosure in clause (f) of the interim arbitral order is one that was required by the Tribunal. What is sought from this Court however, in terms of disclosure, is in pursuance of execution of clauses (a) or (b) of clause 47, that is to say a disclosure of assets sufficient to meet the requirement of a deposit of Rs.190 crores.

2. One of the points agitated at the forefront before the learned sole Arbitrator was whether Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 were properly impleaded in the arbitral proceedings. He held they were. That finding has not been disturbed yet although I am informed that Section 37 Appeal has been filed. Whether or not that finding as to arbitrability and joinder can be even taken up in a Section 37 appeal is for that Court to decide. What remains here, however, is that Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 are jointly and severally liable with Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and are also required to jointly and severally make this deposit of Rs.190 crores.

3. Given the fact that the Respondents are even now attempting to have the Section 37 appeal listed, I will grant them time of three weeks to make the necessary disclosures in terms of prayer clause (a) and (d) of the Chamber Summons. There will also be an ad-interim injunction that will operate until 17th September 2018 in terms of prayer clause (b).

4. The Affidavits of Disclosure are to be filed on or before 7th September 2018.

5. The injunctions in terms of clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the interim arbitral order will also continue.

6. List the matter on 17th September 2018.”

2. When these appeals were placed for admission before us, Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the original applicants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 to these appeals, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals. Relying upon the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, “the Commercial Courts Act, 2015”) and particularly Section 13 thereof, he would submit that the order under challenge is not appealable.

3. It is, therefore, imperative for us to consider this preliminary objection and we have considered it by hearing the Counsel on either side at great length.

4. After the conclusion of the oral arguments, both sides have tendered their written submissions.

5. We shall, firstly, refer to the submissions and arguments of Mr. Dwarkadas. He would submit that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, prior to its amendment by Amendment Act No.28 of 2018, with effect from 3-5-2018 and later on as well is an Act to provide for the constitution of the Commercial Courts, the Commercial Appellate Courts, the Commercial Division and the Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. He would submit that the statement of objects and reasons leadi