IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, M.R. Anitha, JJ.
Oommen Thomas Panicker – Appellant
Versus
Monica Constructions and Ors – Respondents
F.A.O.NO.44 OF 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 226 and 227 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 8(1), 37(1)(a) , 2(e)(i), 37(1) and 15 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 104(1) - Commercial Courts Act - Section 15 - Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10(1)(a) and 10F - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2016 – Section 34(6) - Construction contract - Sought for a declaration of termination of contract - Maintainability of appeal – Arbitration Agreement - Whether an appeal against an order passed on an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is maintainable or not, the parameters of Section 37(1)(a) of the said Act alone have to be looked into - Appellant is 1st defendant on file of First Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court suit filed by 1st respondent-plaintiff against appellant and 2nd respondent to realise a sum towards balance cost on works undertaken by 1st defendant in a construction contract -
Finding of the Court: When an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Act is dismissed by a judicial authority, refusing to refer the parties to arbitration on a finding that a dispute in the arbitration agreement is not arbitrable, the order passed by that authority will come under the purview of an appealable order under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act - Commercial dispute of specified value shall stand transferred to Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at time of transfer - Appellate Division of High Court may, on the application of any of parties to suit, withdraw such suit or application from court before which it is pending and transfer same for trial or disposal to Commercial Division or Commercial Court - Section 8(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act to refer parties to arbitration as not maintainable, ought to have ordered transfer pending before that court to Commercial Court provided under Section 15(2) of Commercial Courts Act, so as to enable that court to proceed with and also provided under Section 15(3) of the said Act - Dismissing I.A. filed under Section 8(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as not maintainable, assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, can certainly be challenged invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2018 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, a suit filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff against the appellant and the 2nd respondent to realise a sum of Rs.85,80,203/- towards balance cost on works undertaken by the 1st defendant in a construction contract. The plaintiff has also sought for a declaration that termination of the said contract by the 1st defendant is illegal. In O.S.No.202 of 2018, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.2 of 2020, an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to refer the parties to arbitration. The plaintiff filed objections. After considering the rival contentions, the court below, by the order dated 01.03.2021, dismissed that application as not maintainable, on the ground that, since the amount sought to be recovered is in excess of Rs.85,00,000/-, in the dispute arising out of a construction and infrastructure contract, O.S.No.202 of 2018 is liable to be transferred to the Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in view of the provisions under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court, under Section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Initially, Registry has not numbered this appeal raising certain doubts as to its maintainability. On 08.07.2021, when the unnumbered appeal came up for consideration, after hearing preliminary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we found that the question of maintainability of the appeal requires detailed consideration with notice to the respondents. Therefore, Registry was directed to number the appeal, subject to the condition that the question of maintainability will be decided with notice to the respondents. Thereafter, on the same day, this Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the respondents, along with a copy of the order dated 08.07.2021, returnable within ten days.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-1st defendant and also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff on the question of maintainability of this appeal. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2018, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein, is the Arbitrator as per the contract.
4. On the question of maintainability of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant-1st defendant contended that, the impugned order of the court below, dismissing an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as not maintainable, is appealable under Section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 37(1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff contended that, the impugned order of the court below dismissing an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as not maintainable, in view of the provisions under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, is not an order of the court below refusing to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which alone is appealable under Section 37(1)(a) of the said Act. In view of the prohibition contained in Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, such an order is not appealable.
5. As already noticed, O.S.No. 202 of 2018 is one filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree to realise a sum of Rs.85,80,203/- from the 1st defendant towards alleged balance cost of the work done under a construction contract. In that suit, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to refer the dispute to arbitration, under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international co
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.
Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Chintels (India) Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd.
CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.
Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India
P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.
Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt. Ltd. v. Cocosath Health Products
State of Kerala v. Somdatt Builders Ltd.
Sumitomo Corpn. v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.