Appeals under the Commercial Courts Act must strictly adhere to specified provisions; orders under Section 151 of the CPC are not appealable as they fall outside established criteria.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Inasmuch as the present judgment decides these appeals on the aspect of maintainability, it is not necessary for us to delve deep into the facts. Suffice it, therefore, to state that arbitral proceedings between the parties culminated in a partial arbitral award dated 12 October 2004 and final arbitral award dated 26 October 2016. The seat of arbitration was Malaysia.

2. The appellant challenged the aforesaid awards before the competent courts in Kuala Lumpur and lost.

3. Thereafter the respondents being the successful award holders moved OMP (EFA) (COMM) 15/2016,Cairn India Ltd & ors v Govt of Indiaand OMP (EFA) (COMM) 5/2017, Vedanta Ltd & anr v Govt of India,under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ["the 1996 Act”, hereinafter]. In the said appeals, in OMP (EFA) (COMM) 5/2017, the respondent-award holder moved EX. APPL(OS) 635/2024 and EX. APPL(OS) 1105/2024 - DIR. In OMP (EFA) (COMM) 15/2016, the respondents moved EX APPL (OS) 1316/2024. The prayers in the applications were identical, and identical orders have been passed therein, leading to the present appeals.

4. All applications were preferred under Section 151 , [151. Saving of inherent powers of Court. – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.]of the CPC, [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908].

5. In EX. APPL (OS) 635/2024, the respondent, while seeking early hearing, advanced an alternate prayer for a restraint against the appellant from renewing four bank guarantees for an amount of Rs.94,11,13,692/- provided by them as well as a direction to the ICICI Bank, which had issued the said Bank Guarantees, not to encash them till the next date of hearing.

6. In EX. APPL (OS) 635/2024, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 24 April 2024, restrained the encashment of four bank guarantees furnished by the respondent subject to an undertaking being provided by the respondent as directed in the said order. For ready reference, para 7 of the order dated 24 April 2024 may be reproduced as under:

“7. In the meanwhile, the bank guarantees will not be encashed, subject to an undertaking being filed by the award holder- company through an authorised representative, supported by a Board Resolution, to the effect that fresh bank guarantees for the requisite amount will be furnished, if so directed by the Court on 15.05.2024 or thereafter. The undertaking will also state that, in the event there is any impediment in furnishing of fresh bank guarantees or invocation of the present bank guarantees after 12.05.2024, the award holder will deposit the amounts secured by the bank guarantees into Court, in terms of any directions that the Court may pass. The undertaking be filed by 01.05.2024.”

7. EX. APPL (OS) 1105/2024-DIR also instituted by the respondent, sought a restraint against the encashment of six other bank guarantees provided by the respondent, amounting to Rs.134,77,25,758/-. By order dated 26 July 2024, passed in the said application, a learned Single Judge directed thus:

“4. It is, therefore, directed that till the next date of hearing, the petitioner need not renew the 6 Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs. 134,77,25,758/- till 06.08.2024 subject to an undertaking being filed by the decree holder - company through an authorised representative, supported by a Board Resolution, to the effect that fresh bank guarantees for the requisite amount will be furnished, if so directed by the Court on 06.08.2024 or thereafter. The undertaking will also