IMPORTANT POINT
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 grants jurisdiction to Commercial Courts for executing arbitral awards related to commercial disputes, emphasizing expedited resolution.

JUDGMENT :

This Original Petition is filed impugning the order dated 18.10.2024, in E.P.No.52/2024 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Pathanamthitta.

2. Petitioners are arrayed as the Judgment Debtors and respondent herein is the decree holder in Ext.P2, E.P. No.52/2024, filed before the Addl. District Court No. IV, Pathanamthitta. The Execution petition was filed by the respondent seeking enforcement of an Arbitral Award, Ext.P1, dated 23.06.2022, in the matter of D. Monalisa Impex vs. M/s. Karthik Exports & Another.

3. The 1st petitioner is a trader, importer, seller, having its registered office at Kerala, India. ‘D. Monalisa Impex’, the seller, is a partnership office engaged in export of perishable consumables across various parts of the world. The respondent, being a trade facilitator, acts as an intermediary between the buyer as well as the seller on commission basis. The sole arbitrator has held in favour of the respondent, and the 1^st petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,034,234/- to D. Monalisa Impex, the petitioner therein, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and the petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,368,445/- to the respondent herein. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners challenging Ext.P1 award before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta as AP/762/2022, which is pending consideration.

4. Meanwhile, the respondent herein preferred E.P.No52/2024, to enforce Ext P1, against the petitioners herein/judgment debtors, to which preliminary objections were filed by the petitioners challenging the maintainability of Ext.P2 before the District Court. Their major contention is that Ext.P2 can only be filed before the Commercial Court, and not before the District Court.

5. However, without adverting to any of the objections raised by the petitioners, the learned district court repelled the contentions regarding the maintainability and held, Ext.P2 to be maintainable before the District Court, by Ext.P5 order dated 18.10.2024. It is against Ext.P5, present O.P (C) stands filed.

6. Heard the counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

7. The counsel for the petitioner challenges the maintainability of the execution petition before the district court by resorting to Section 10(3) and Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act, 2015'). It is contended that by virtue of the above provisions, Ext.P2 should have been filed before the Commercial Court since that Court is having jurisdiction in the matter. The counsel also contends that the Principal civil court of original jurisdiction is not having jurisdiction to consider execution petition after the enactment of the Act, 2015.

8. In the preliminary objection filed to the abovesaid E.P, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the total amount claimed in the execution petition is much above the specified value, and hence, by virtue of section 6, r/w section 10(3) and section 12 of the Act, 2015, the Commercial Court alone is vested with the jurisdiction to proceed with trial and execution.

9. The District Court has found in the impugned order that the E.P before the district court is maintainable, relying on the decision relied on by the decree holder/respondent herein, in M/s Beta Exim Logistics (P) Ltd. V. M/s.Central Railside Warehouse Co. Ltd. ( (2023 KHC Online 195) ), which was in respect of filing E.P before the District court relating to arbitral awards. It was held by this court that if a more expansive interpretation is given to the word ‘application’ falling under section 15 of the Act, 2015, to include execution petitions also, then necessarily all the execution petitions pending before all the civil courts falling within the ken of the Act, 2015, will have to be transferred to the Commercial courts, which in turn, will clog the special courts with such matters as no practical purpose shall be served by that transfer because special courts are not conferr