Order :

Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 30th January 2021 passed by learned Commercial Court, Naya Raipur by which, appellant's application under Order 21 Rule 46-A read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as also an application under Section 47 r/w Order 21 Rule 58 CPC has been rejected.

Dispute between the parties as aforesaid led to reference of the dispute for arbitration to the Arbitrators. The Arbitration proceedings eventually culminated in an Award dated 11.6.2018.

As the pleadings revealed, appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”) before the High Court of Delhi. Prayer was made for setting aside the Award. Said application was, however, dismissed vide an order dated 3.4.2019 on the grounds of limitation only.

It is further revealed from the pleadings that an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act has also been preferred which is said to be pending before the appellate forum.

2. The respondent, however, moved an execution application for execution of Award before the learned Commercial Court, Naya Raipur. It is also disclosed on facts that remedy has also been taken seeking stay of operation of the arbitral Award and additional Award passed by the Arbitrators, wherein orders have been passed and various proceedings are pending.

3. Learned Commercial Court, Naya Raipur, however, passed an order on 23rd January 2020 issuing directions towards attachment of an amount of Rs.15,52,96,141/- lying in the bank account of judgment debtor/appellant herein. Thereafter, respondent- decree holder also filed application on 7.3.2020, purporting to be an application under Section 151 CPC seeking issuance of further direction for transfer of the aforesaid amount to the Bank accounts of the Court and, thereafter, release of the same in favour of the decree holder.

4. While matter stood thus, the appellant moved various applications including two applications, with which we are concerned in the present case, one being an application under Order 21 Rule 46-A r/w Section 151 CPC and another being an application under Section 47 r/w Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. Both these applications came to be rejected by the impugned order giving rise to this appeal.

5. The respondent, however, raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant Arbitration Appeal mainly relying upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kandla Export Corporation & Another (2018) 14 SCC 715 and BGS SGS Soma JV Vs. NHPC Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 234. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent made pointed submission that as the order impugned does not fall in the category of orders as exhaustively enumerated in Section 37 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, the appeal is not maintainable.

6. Replying to the said objection, learned counsel for the appellant argued that proviso to sub-Section (1A) of Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act has to be interpreted liberally and widely to include within its scope and ambit, the orders of the nature which have been passed by the Commercial Court and impugned in the appeal. Referring to the provision contained therein and relying upon decisions in the cases of Hubtown Limited Vs. IDBI Trusteeship Service 2016 SCC On-line Bombay 9019, order dated 5th July 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Delhi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and order dated 16.3.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in D & H India Ltd. Vs. Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd., it has been contended that the appeal in the present case would certainly be maintainable under the statutory scheme of appeal engrafted under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the judgment cited at the bar before us, we are of the considered view that objection to the maintainability of the