A court lacking statutory designation as a commercial division lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate commercial disputes of a specified value. Any judgment delivered by such an undesignated judge, regardless of administrative assignment, is a nullity and cannot be sustained in law.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals are taken up for hearing analogously as the issues involved are same.

2. Appeal is under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and directed against the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the subject matter of the disputes referred to arbitration which culminated into the award dated September 24, 2019 and the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 which resulted in the impugned judgment and order, is a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He submits that, the impugned judgment and order was passed by a Court when, such Court was not designated as a Commercial Division, under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2015.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon a decision dated January 29, 2026 passed in APO/93/2020 ( State of West Bengal Vs. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. ), 2026:CHC- OS:15-DB ( Tractel Tirfor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tractel International S.A.S ) and 2026:CHC-OS:120-DB ( Starlift Services Private Limited Vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata ) and submits that, in view of the pronouncement therein, since, the impugned judgment and order was passed by a Court which was not designated Court under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2015, the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction and therefore, a nullity.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant refers to Tractel Tirfor India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in particular to a decision of the Supreme Court reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 582 ( Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited Vs. GRSE Limited Workmens Union ) and submits that, since, the learned Judge passed the impugned judgment and order was without requisite determination, the same is required to be treated as a nullity.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the order dated April 22, 2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 006873 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 8111 of 2026] ( Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ) and submits that, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (supra) was noted therein. He submits that, even on the strength of Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. (supra), the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 along with the execution petition were assigned to the learned Single Judge by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice on February 7, 2022. On such date, the learned Judge, was not designated under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2015 to discharge duties as a Commercial Division under the Act of 2015.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was pending before the Court which was designated as a Commercial Division under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2015. The learned Judge, released the proceeding on December 6, 2021, since, a review petition against an order dated September 1, 2021 was pending before the Co-ordinate Bench. It is on that premise that, the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was released by the Court which was designated as the Commercial Court under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2015 on December 6, 2021. He submits that, by virtue of the ass