JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellant has assailed the order dated November 10, 2025 passed in AP COM 697 of 2025.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has disposed of a petition under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by granting stay of an award which was the subject matter of challenge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 in AP COM 361 of 2024 on the condition that the appellant deposits the entire awarded amount along with awarded interest with the Registrar, Original Side. Learned Single Judge has directed the Registrar, Original Side to invest such amount in interest bearing auto renewal fixed deposit account in any nationalized bank and retain the same till disposal of AP COM 361 of 2024.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the appellant is an insurance company. He has contended that, directing deposit of the entire awarded amount is prejudicial to the financial health of the appellant. Appellant has substantial assets including immovable property which can be taken as security. The appellant can also furnish a bank guarantee if directed by the Court to secure the arbitral amount.

4. On the aspect of right of appeal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, creates an independent and substantive right. In support of such contention, he has relied upon AIR 1957 Supreme Court 540 (Garikapati Veeraya vs. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Other), and AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1042 (Videocon International Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India).

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, proviso to Section 13(1A) cannot override the main provision. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 1985 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 591 (S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V. R. Pattabiraman) and 2013 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 427 (Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Jaipur and Ors.)

6. Relying upon 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6955 (HPL (India) Ltd. vs. QRG Enterprises) Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that Commercial appellate jurisdiction should not be constricted beyond legislative intent.

7. Relying upon 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9019 (Hubtown Ltd. vs. Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd.) learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, Section 13 of the Act of 2015 must be interpreted so as to allow the appeal against an order under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 as the impugned order qualifies as a judgment within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act of 2015.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, orders under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 are adjudicatory in nature. In support of such contention he has relied upon 2018 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 287 (Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd.), and 2019 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 112 (Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal).

9. Relying upon 2020 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 585 (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP) learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the provisions of the Act of 2015 do not intend to abolish a scrutiny by the Appeal Court.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 13 of the Act of 2015. In support of such contention he has relied upon 2018 Volume 14 Supreme Court Cases 715 (Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. Vs. OCI Corporation & Anr.) and 2023 CHC – OS: 5125 (Super Smelters Ltd. vs. Predominant Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.). He has pointed out that, a Special Leave Petition directed against the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Super Smelters Limited (supra) was dismissed.

11. Appellant before us suffered an award dated April 28, 2023. By the award dated April 28, 2023, the learned sole arbitrator had awarded Rs.1,76,74,39