JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1.Is an appeal from an order passed by the Commercial Court/Additional Subordinate Judges Court in a matter which arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appealable before this Court as an arbitration appeal? This is the question that requires a resolution.

2.The appellant had invested in securities using the services of the respondent, who is a trading member of the National Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2016 opening a Demat Account with the respondent. On account of losses suffered by him, the appellant had raised a claim for Rs.2 crore against the respondent, invoking the Investor Grievance Redressal Proceedings (IGRP for short) of the National Stock Exchange. Though the petition preferred under the Investor Grievance Redressal Procedure of the National Stock Exchange was initially closed on 18.10.2016, the appellant had taken up the matter with the SEBI which directed the IGRB to re-examine the complaints of the investor. An arbitration award was passed on a split verdict, dismissing the Arbitration application on 14.3.2022. Thereafter, an appeal was taken before the panel of arbitrators which held that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.7,29,58,796/- with 6% interest. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court/Additional Subordinate Court, Kollam as O.P.(Arb) No.8/2022. The Commercial Court issued the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 setting aside the Appellate Tribunal Award passed by the Panel of Arbitrators on the ground that it was barred by limitation and is, therefore against the public policy of India and suffers from patent illegality. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Commercial Court, that is, the Additional Sub Court, Kollam in O.P(Arb) No.8/2022 dated 27.9.2023, this appeal is filed.

3.The respondent took up the preliminary contention that the appeal is not maintainable, in view of the fact that an appeal from a judgment or order of the Commercial Court is maintainable only before the Commercial Appellate Court and not before this Court. The contention is that, the fact that the petition which is decided is one which arises under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will make no difference to the above factual situation, in the light of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as well as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the dispute in question is one which arises specifically under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and is not a commercial dispute at all. It is contended that an appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under Section 37 thereof can lie only to the High Court and not to the District Court. It is submitted that the “court” under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would only be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district in the case of the State of Kerala and therefore the arbitration petition ought to have been preferred before such court. It is submitted tht the fact that the respondent chose to file the OP(Arb) in a wrong forum cannot make any difference to the situation and the appeal would be maintainable before this Court.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, on the other hand, contend that it is clear from a plain reading of the Commercial Courts Act itself that the dispute in question is a commercial dispute and that the court having jurisdiction to consider the OP(Arb) in the first place was the Commercial Court, which is admittedly the Additional Subordinate Court, Kollam in the instant case. It is contended that since Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act controls Arbitration Act also, there can be no doubt that the appeal would be maintainable only before the Commercial Appellate Court, which is the District Court in the instant case. It is stated that a