Appeals against dismissal of execution applications under the Commercial Courts Act must conform to specified orders in Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the limits of appellate jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, CJ.

1. These appeals under Section 13 (1A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 (for short ‘Act, 2015’) have been filed against the judgments/orders dated 05.09.2024 passed by Commercial Court, Prayagraj in Execution Case Nos. 33 of 2004 and 31 of 2004 arising out of arbitral awards dated 31.07.2002 passed by Sole Arbitrator, whereby the execution cases filed by the appellants have been rejected.

2. The facts indicated reveal that respondent-Jal Nigam invited tenders for reconstruction of RCC Overhead Tank, the contract bond was accepted and signed on 12.06.1972 by M/s Chaddha & Co. through Sri P.D. Chaddha, who later on died on 19.09.2017. After execution of the work, when outstanding bill was not cleared by the respondent, a dispute arose between the parties and proceedings were initiated for appointment of Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was appointed by order dated 13.11.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. Ex-parte awards dated 31.07.2002 were passed by the Arbitrator. For execution of the awards dated 31.07.2002, execution applications were filed. The execution proceedings were contested.

3. On account of death of Mr. P.D. Chaddha, who had filed the proceedings on behalf of the firm, application under Section 146 C.P.C. was filed seeking the permission to pursue the execution cases by Mr. Piyush Chaddha, son of P.D. Chaddha, however, when Mr. Piyush Chaddha also died on 14.04.2021, the appellants moved applications seeking permission to conduct the pending execution cases. Thereafter respondents 4 to 6 also moved applications seeking permission to continue the proceedings, which were allowed.

4. The Commercial Court, by the orders impugned, framed points for determination pertaining to the maintainability of the proceedings at the instance of the applicants and came to the conclusion that succession certificate was not necessary, however, in view of the fact that two sets of claimants were seeking exclusive right to prosecute the applications, the Court came to the conclusion that none was able to establish such right and consequently dismissed the applications.

5. Feeling aggrieved, present appeals have been filed under the provisions of Section 13 (1A) of the Act, 2015.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeals. Submissions were made that under proviso to Section 13 (1A) of the Act, 2015, appeal can lie only from such orders passed by Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII C.P.C. and Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act, 1996’) and as the orders impugned do not fall within either of the categories, the appeals deserve to be dismissed as not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Kandla Export Corporation and another Vs. OCI Corporation and another : (2018) 14 SCC 715 . It was prayed that the appeals may be dismissed as not maintainable.

7. Counsel for the appellants vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the appeals are very much maintainable under the provisions of Section 13 (1A) of the Act, 2015 and the objection raised in this regard has no substance. Submissions were made that the provisions of Section 13 (1A) of the Act, 2015 provide for appeal against judgment/order of a Commercial Court to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court independent of the proviso under the said sub-section and, therefore, as the orders impugned have been pass