The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appealability of orders pertaining to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be determined as per the drill under Section 50 alone, and it is impermissible to look into any other Act, such as the Commercial Courts Act, to see if an appeal will lie thereunder.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.06.2023 made in Arb.O.P.No.572 of 2022.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. This Intra Court appeal is filed, challenging the order dated 13.06.2023 passed in Arb.O.P(Com.Div) No.572 of 2012, which has been filed by the respondent herein to declare the award dated 29.01.2021 be deemed to be decree of this Court and for a direction to the respondent to enforce the Foreign Award dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Arbitrator of the Republic of Korea.

2. The respondent herein had filed Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.572 of 2022 before this Court seeking enforcement of the Foreign Award passed by the Republic of Korea, vide Award dated 29.01.2021. In the said Arbitration Original Petition, the appellant has raised a grond that the arbitration proceedings has not been conducted in a fair manner and no opporutunity has been provided to the appellant to present his case and he had filed numerous documents before the Arbitrator, however the same had not been considered by the learned Arbitrator and further, the arbitration proceedings were conducted during COVID-19 pandemic and due to closure of the office of the appellant, they were not in a position to participate in the arbitration procedings physically. The learned Single Judge has rejected the aforesaid grounds raised by the appellant and held that the Foreign Award is enforceable in terms of Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short "Arbitration Act"]. Aggrieved by the allowing of the Arbitration Original Petition, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. Mr.Senthur, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Sections 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the Arbitration Act and Sections 10 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and would contend that the award has been passed based on the submissions made by the respondent without considering the documents submitted by the appellant and also in violation of the principles of natural justice and as such, it cannot be legally binding and enfoced on the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Karia and Others v. Prysmian Cavie Sistemi SRL and Others [(2020) 11 SCC 1].

4. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection on the maintaibility of the present appeal, on the ground that it is a non-appealable order and as per Section 50 of the Arbitration Act, an appeal lies only against an order refusing to enforce a Foreign Award and no appeal lies as against the order deciding to enforce a Foreign Award. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :

(i) Furest Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited [(2011) 8 SCC 333],

(ii) Kandla Export Corporation and another v. OCI Corporation and another [(2018) 14 SCC 715] and

(iii) Noy Vallestina Engineering SPA v. Jindal Drugs Limited and Others [(2021) 1 SCC 382].

5. This Court has anxiously considered the submissions made and also perused the judgments relied on by the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the partes had moved arbitration in Seoul in accordance with the Commerical Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The Arbitral Award was passed on 29.01.2021 and for enforcement of such award under Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration Act, the respondent herein has filed Arb.O.P.No.572 of 2022 before this Court, which came to be allowed in favour of the respondent holding that the Foreign Award to be enforceable, against which the present appeal is filed.

7. The respondent herein has raised preliminary objection on the maintainbility of this appeal by relying upon Section 50 of the Ar