SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANU SIVARAMAN, C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ.
Alexander Luke, S/o. Koipuram Luke - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Aditya Birla Money Ltd - Respondent
Arbitration Appeal No. 28 of 2023
Decided On : 14-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajesh Narayan.
For the Respondent: Sreelal N. Warriar, Nanda Surendran, Alka Warriar.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, especially Section 10(3), to determine the appellate jurisdiction for disputes arising from arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:

Arbitration Appeal - Commercial Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court in relation to commercial disputes arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court emphasized the interpretation of Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act and its impact on the appellate jurisdiction for disputes arising from arbitration.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant invested in securities using the services of the respondent and raised a claim for losses suffered. An arbitration award was passed, and the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court, which set aside the Appellate Tribunal Award. The appellant appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal from the Commercial Court's decision should be filed before the District Court as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the appeal before the current court was not maintainable.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appeal from the Commercial Court's decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be filed before the current court or the District Court as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, especially Section 10(3), to determine the proper appellate forum for disputes arising from arbitration, emphasizing the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent.

Final Decision: The court held that the District Court would be the proper forum for filing the appeal, and the current court was not the appellate court for the impugned judgment. The appeal was directed to be filed before the appropriate forum, and the time spent in prosecuting the appeal before the current court would be disregarded for the purpose of limitation for presenting the appeal before the proper forum.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1. Is an appeal from an order passed by the Commercial Court/Additional Subordinate Judges Court in a matter which arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appealable before this Court as an arbitration appeal? This is the question that requires a resolution.

2. The appellant had invested in securities using the services of the respondent, who is a trading member of the National Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2016 opening a Demat Account with the respondent. On account of losses suffered by him, the appellant had raised a claim for Rs.2 crore against the respondent, invoking the Investor Grievance Redressal Proceedings (IGRP for short) of the National Stock Exchange. Though the petition preferred under the Investor Grievance Redressal Procedure of the National Stock Exchange was initially closed on 18.10.2016, the appellant had taken up the matter with the SEBI which directed the IGRB to re-examine the complaints of the investor. An arbitration award was passed on a split verdict, dismissing the Arbitration application on 14.3.2022. Thereafter, an appeal was taken before the panel of arbitrators which held that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.7,29,58,796/- with 6% interest. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court/Additional Subordinate Court, Kollam as O.P.(Arb) No.8/2022. The Commercial Court issued the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 setting aside the Appellate Tribunal Award passed by the Panel of Arbitrators on the ground that it was barred by limitation and is, therefore against the public policy of India and suffers from patent illegality. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Commercial Court, that is, the Additional Sub Court, Kollam in O.P.(Arb) No.8/2022 dated 27.9.2023, this appeal is filed.

3. The respondent took up the preliminary contention that the appeal is not maintainable, in view of the fact that an appeal from a judgment or order of the Commercial Court is maintainable only before the Commercial Appellate Court and not before this Court. The contention is that, the fact that the petition which is decided is one which arises under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will make no difference to the above factual situation, in the light of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as well as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the dispute in question is one which arises specifically under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and is not a commercial dispute at all. It is contended that an appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under Section 37 thereof can lie only to the High Court and not to the District Court. It is submitted that the “court” under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would only be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district in the case of the State of Kerala and therefore the arbitration petition ought to have been preferred before such court. It is submitted tht the fact that the respondent chose to file the OP(Arb) in a wrong forum cannot make any difference to the situation and the appeal would be maintainable before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, on the other hand, contend that it is clear from a plain reading of the Commercial Courts Act itself that the dispute in question is a commercial dispute and that the court having jurisdiction to consider the OP(Arb) in the first place was the Commercial Court, which is admittedly the Additional Subordinate Court, Kollam in the instant case. It is contended that since Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act controls Arbitration Act also, there can be no doubt that the appeal would be maintainable only before the Commercial Appellate Court, which is the District Court in the instant case. It is stated th

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top