Financial transactions resembling financier dealings qualify as commercial disputes under Commercial Courts Act, requiring execution before Commercial Court.

JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

This original petition is filed challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the Additional District Judge-II (Special), Kottayam in E.A. No.2 of 2024 in E.P. No.105 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2023, of the sole Arbitrator.

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 105 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge-II (Special), Kottayam. The said execution petition is filed by the respondent decree holder seeking execution of the award passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2023. The arbitration case is filed by the respondent under Section 9of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act” for brevity). The arbitrator passed Ext. R(a) award and the respondent herein was allowed to recover Rs. 142 lakhs with interest and cost of litigation from the petitioner and his assets. The respondent filed Ext. P1 petition (E.P. No. 105 of 2024) seeking execution of Ext. R(a) award. The petitioner filed Ext. P2 application (E.A. No. 2 of 2024) in the execution petition contending that Ext. P1 petition is not maintainable before the District Court in view of the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and that the Commercial Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. The learned Additional District Judge, by Ext. P3 order, dismissed Ext. P2 application holding that Ext. P1 application is maintainable before that Court.

3. The petitioner states that he had filed O.P.(Arb) No. 128 of 2024 before the Principal District Court, Kottayam challenging Ext. R(a) award. However, the respondent raised the issue of maintainability and the court by Ext. R(e) order returned the original petition for presentation before the proper court as it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner presented the petition before the Commercial Court, Kottayam where it has been renumbered as O.P. (Arb) No.4 of 2024.

4. The petitioner contends that, by virtue of the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, the Commercial Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain an execution petition seeking enforcement of the award passed by an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Act.

5. Before the Additional District Court, the petitioner, relying on the decision of this Court in M/s Karthik Exports and Others v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal [2025 KHC 309: 2025 (2) KLT 805], contended that, after the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, any petition connected with arbitration matters has to be filed before the Commercial Courts, and hence the execution petition filed before the said court is not maintainable. Distinguishing the said decision on the facts and circumstances of the present case and placing reliance on Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, the learned Additional District Judge held that the dispute in question is a 'money dispute' between two individuals and does not qualify as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act and hence, Section 10 cannot be invoked. The relevant portion of Ext. P3 order reads thus :

“8. The learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that none of the categories of commercial disputes enumerated under section 2(1)(c)(i) to (xxii) are attracted in this case. According to learned counsel for the decree holder, the petitioner and respondent are known to each other, and the decree holder advanced a total sum of Rs.1,22,19,660/- to the judgment debtor on different occasions. The outstanding amount as on 28.02.2023 was 1,22,19,660/-, and on the same day, the parties executed an agree