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

2025 Supreme(Ori) 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
M/s. Jaycee Housing Private Limited – Appellant  
Versus
Neelachal Buildtech & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar - Respondent
ARBA No.7 of 2024
Decided on : 08-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Yasobant Das, Sr. Adv. along with associates
For the Respondent: Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Adv.

The jurisdiction for appeals regarding arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lies with the Commercial Appellate Court as prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, superseding prior norms.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Appeal against arbitral award - Appeal regarding maintainability of the appeal filed in incorrect forum - Court determines that the appeal under Section 37 must be filed in the Commercial Appellate Court as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Paras 16, 30, 38)

(B) Jurisdiction - The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a comprehensive framework specifying the jurisdictional boundaries for appeals arising from arbitration matters, reinforcing the need for adherence to procedural norms. (Paras 20, 26)

Facts of the case:
The Appellants entered into a development agreement with the Respondents for a plot of land but dissatisfaction over progress led to arbitration. An award was issued, which prompted the Appellants to challenge it under Section 34 of the A&C Act, later deemed non-maintainable in the given court context.

Findings of Court:
The Court clarified that jurisdiction for such appeals lies solely with the Commercial Appellate Court, warranting returning of the appeal for proper adjudication therein.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act was maintainable before the High Court or needed to be directed to the Commercial Appellate Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 prescribes that such appeals should be directed to the Commercial Appellate Court, not the High Court, thereby establishing a clear procedural framework.

Result: The appeal is returned to be filed in the appropriate court.

Table of Content
1. appeal under section 37 of the a&c act noted. (Para 1)
2. background facts of the arbitration dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. summary of parties' contentions. (Para 7)
4. appellants' arguments on arbitration disqualification. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. respondent's submissions on maintainability. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. court's determination on preliminary issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. analyses of commercial courts act provisions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. court reviews previous case law and its implications. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
9. recent interpretations of commercial courts act cited. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
10. the court's conclusion on the applicable court for arbitration appeals. (Para 32)
11. final instructions on appeal process and conclusion. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) has been filed seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 2.2.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Petition No. 79 of 2015.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The present Appellants are the original owner of 4 acres 875 decimals of land consisting of 15 contiguous plots. On 10.9.2002, the Appellants and the Respondent entered into an agreement for development of the said land. The present Appellants also entered into an agreement with one, Kesari Estates Pvt. Ltd. for the development of a portion of their land. On 14.9.2005, the present Appellants executed a bipartite agreement with the present Respondent as well as a tripartite agreement with the present Respondent and Kesari Estates Pvt. Ltd.

3. There were concerns pertaining to slow progress of work, inability of the Respondent to obtain approval for the revised plan from the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, etc. On multiple occasions, the present Appellants expressed their dissatisfaction with reference to the slow progress of work and failure of the Respondent to adhere to the agreed upon milestones of construction. A supplementary agreement was executed between the parties for extension of time to complete the project by 31.3.2011 on part payment of compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- by 31.3.2012.. Several communications were made for payment of compensation, after which the parties agreed to resolve the dispute by reference to arbitration. The present Respondent invoked the arbitration clause as per the tripartite agreement dated 14.9.2005.

4. The present Respondent (Original Claimant) filed its statement of claims under 12 different heads, to which the present Appellant filed its counter statement and counter claims. Hearing commenced and in view of the pleadings and evidence led in the proceeding, the Ld. Tribunal passed the arbitral award dated 30.6.2015 in which Rs. 2,12,13,336/- at 18% interest p.a. was awarded in favour of the present Respondent and Rs. 15,00,000/- at 18% interest p.a. was awarded in favour of the present Appellants towards the counter claims.

5. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Petition No. 79 of 2015 under Section 34 of the A&C Act seeking modification of the award.

6. Having heard the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar was pleased to hold that the present Appellants had failed to make out any case for interference with the award and accordingly the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act was dismissed for being devoid of merits.

7. Now that the facts leading to the instant Appeal have been laid down, this Court shall endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised to seek the exercise of this Court’s limited jurisdiction available under S. 37 of the A&C Act.

II. APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS:

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants assails the arbitral award and the judgment

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