IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. M/S KISHORE VIDYANIKETAN SOCIETY (R)

OFFICE AT SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL C BLOCK, OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE NEAR KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER MR. NAGRAJU S/O. LATE BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL 'C' BLOCK, OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE NEAR KODIGEHALLI Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SAHAKARA NAGAR SWETHA KRISHNAN BENGALURU - 560 092 Location: High …APPELLANT Court of (BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR Karnataka SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE OFFICE AT 3^RD FLOOR, EAST WING, 'KHANIJA BHAVANA', RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN COM.A.A.NO.265/2025 BY LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-83) DATED 16.08.2025 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Act, 2015] impugning the order dated 16.08.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court in Com.A.A.No.265/2025. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [the A&C Act] inter alia praying that the respondent be directed to provide certified copies of the arbitral award without seeking deposit of arbitral fees. The said petition was disposed of in terms of the impugned order with a direction to the appellant to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.19679/2025.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13(1A) of the Act, 2015. We find that the same is not maintainable. A plain reading of proviso to Sub Section (1A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2015 specifies that an appeal is maintainable either from the orders of the Commercial Court, which are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] or under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Neither Order XLIII of the CPC nor Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for an appeal against the order passed under Section 39(2) of A&C Act.

3. In Kandla Exports Corporation and another vs. OCI Corporation and another : (2018) 14 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"13. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, with which we are immediately concerned in these appeals, is in two parts. The main provision is, as has been correctly submitted by Shri Giri, a provision which provides for appeals from judgments, orders and decrees of the Commercial Division of the High Court. To this main provision, an exception is carved out by the proviso. The primary purpose of a proviso is to qualify the generality of the main part by providing an exception, which has been set out with great felicity in CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. [CIT v. Indo- Mercantile Bank Ltd., 1959 Supp (2) SCR 256 : AIR 1959 SC 713] , thus: (SCR pp. 266-67 : AIR pp. 717-18, paras 9-10)

“9. … The proper function of a proviso is that it qualifies the generality of the main enactment by providing an exception and taking out as it were, from the main enactment, a portion which, but for the proviso would fall within the main enactment. Ordinarily it is foreign to the proper function of a proviso to read it as providing something by way of an addendum or dealing with a subject which is foreign to the main enactment.

‘8. … it is a fundamental rule of construct