The jurisdiction of courts over arbitration applications must adhere to specified pecuniary thresholds established by law, and errors in this regard can invalidate decisions.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated July 23, 2025 passed by this Court thereby disposing of A.P.O. 84 of 2023 - being an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter “the said Act of 1996”).

2. The said appeal had been filed by the respondent herein (i.e. hereafter “Garden Reach” ) assailing an order dated April 5, 2023 passed in A.P. 831 of 2018 which was an application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996.

3. A.P. 831 of 2018 had been filed by the review-applicant (hereafter “Marine Craft”) laying challenge to an arbitral award made and published on September 23, 2018.

4. The said application being A.P. 831 of 2018 had been allowed by the said order dated April 5, 2023 thereby setting aside an arbitral award made and published on September 23, 2018.

5. The said order dated April 5, 2023 (whereby A.P. 831 of 2018 had been allowed) was set aside by the order dated July 23, 2025, which is now under review, upon holding that the order dated April 5, 2023 had been passed by the Hon’ble Judge who did not have determination (and hence jurisdiction) to hear the said application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 since the same pertained to a commercial dispute and the determination to hear commercial arbitration matters was not there with the Hon’ble Judge.

6. The arbitral award that was challenged by Marine Craft by filing A.P. 831 of 2018 had been passed by a sole arbitrator appointed by Garden Reach upon disputes having arisen between Marine Craft and Garden Reach qua certain works done by Marine Craft in terms of a letter of intent and purchase order issued by Garden Reach to Marine Craft.

7. Before proceeding further, the background in which the said order under review i.e. the order dated July 23, 2025 was passed, which is recorded in the said order itself, may be noticed. The same would be evident from the submissions made on behalf of Garden Reach and Marine Craft and our deliberations thereon insofar as the same are relevant to the present context:-

Submissions Made On Behalf Of Garden Reach

“5. He further submitted that in any case, since the matter pertained to the Commercial Division of this Court, the application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 being A.P. 831 of 2018 ought to have been decided by the Commercial Court and not by the Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. He took us to Section 2(1)(c)(vi) and 2(1)(xviii) as well as Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to demonstrate that A.P. 831 of 2018 ought to have been decided by the Courts sitting in Commercial Division and not by the Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

6. It was submitted by Mr. Ghosh that since the aforesaid petition has been decided by a Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction and not a commercial Court therefore the order passed by the said Court is one without jurisdiction and should be treated as a nullity. It was further submitted that there being no provision for transfer of a proceeding on the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to the Commercial Division of this Court, even otherwise, the arbitration petition being A.P. 831 of 2018 could not have been transferred from the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to the Commercial Division.”

Submissions Made On Behalf Of Marine Craft

“14. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that at the relevant point of time when the arbitration petition was filed, the Court presided over by the same Hon’ble Judge had