The distinction between jurisdictional and substantive orders in arbitration law is crucial, and only specified orders under Section 37 are appealable, emphasizing the non-appealability of jurisdictional returns.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. The Appellant-State filed this arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act, 1966’) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Court Act, 2015 (for short “the Act of 2015”) against order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Level), Naya Raipur in MJC No.23/2022, whereby the application preferred by the appellant herein under Section 34 against the arbitral award dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator was challenged and the learned Trial Court returned the original petition with documents holding that the learned Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case under Section 34 of the Act, 1966.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and a joint venture comprising SMEC India Pty. Limited and SMEC International Private Limited had entered into a contract for providing consultancy services in relation to the project of construction, supervision, rehabilitation, and up-gradation of Group ‘A’ Roads in Raipur. The total contract value was Rs.25,06,90,736/- and USD 3,16,822/-, inclusive of service tax at the then prevailing rate of 13.36% on the quoted rates of items. The agreement between the parties was executed on 03.03.2015. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to payment of service tax and Goods and Services Tax (GST) by the respondent and its reimbursement by the applicant. According to the respondent, under the terms and conditions of the contract agreement, they were entitled to reimbursement of the service tax and GST paid by them, and such reimbursement was contractually payable by the applicant. However, the applicant denied its liability to reimburse the said taxes, which led to the emergence of disputes between the parties.

3. In terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the respondent, SMEC International Private Limited, filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 before the this High Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The High Court then allowed the said application and appointed a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the claims and settlement of disputes between the parties. Before the learned Sole Arbitrator, the respondents filed their statement of claim and the appellant filed its statement of defence. Upon conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, the learned Sole Arbitrator passed a final award dated 18.07.2022.

4. Being aggrieved by the said arbitral award, the appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before the learned Commercial Court (District Level) at District Raipur. The said application was registered as MJC No. 23/2022 and proceedings commenced on 31.10.2022. After receipt of the arbitral record, the matter was fixed for final hearing. Written submissions were filed by both parties, oral arguments were heard, and the matter was ultimately fixed for final orders on 11.07.2023. During the entire pendency of the proceedings before the learned Commercial Court, neither party raised any objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the said Court. However, the learned Commercial Court, by order dated 11.07.2023, held that in view of the provisions of Sections 2(e) and 2(f) of the Act, 1996, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34. The learned Commercial Court observed that the matter fell within the ambit