2017 (2) TMI 1543 - HC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of statute - rule of Harmonious Construction - Maintainability of appeal - appealable order under Order XLIII of the CPC or not - Prayer for new documents filed alongwith the affidavits by way of examination-in-chief of new witnesses of the plaintiffs be taken on record. It was submitted that the proviso to Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 is clearly applicable and it specifically provides that no appeal shall lie to a Commercial Appellate Division unless the impugned order is not specifically enumerated in Order XLIII CPC. HELD THAT - An appeal under the Letters Patent is barred under Section 13 of the said Act, unless an appeal was specifically provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the context of the present case, this would translate to the statement that an appeal under the Letters Patent (or under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966) is barred under Section 13 of the said Act, unless an appeal was specifically provided under the CPC. In that case, the court went on to hold that such an appeal was provided under the said 1996 Act and, therefore, an appeal would be maintainable before the Division Bench. But, in the present case the impugned order is not appealable under the CPC. Therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable. It is clear that the view that has been taken does not, in any way, militate against the decision of the Supreme Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya 2016 (9) TMI 1610 - SUPREME COURT . The said decision recognized the fact that Section 13 bars an appeal under the Letters patent and, consequently, under any other law for the time being in force unless an appeal was specifically provided under the said 1996 Act which, in the present case, would be relatable to the said Act and the CPC. It is clear that from the wordings used in Section 13 that insofar as orders are concerned, appeals shall lie only from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC. Section 13(2) further fortifies the position that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. A provision such as the said Section 10 is expressly excluded by Section 13(2) of the said Act read with the proviso to Section 13(1) which specifically enumerates appealable orders to be those specified in Order XLIII CPC. The proviso to Section 13(1) explicitly provides that an appeal shall lie from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC. Section 13(2) makes it further clear that no appeal shall lie from any Order or decree of a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in a Letters Patent of a High Court. When the provisions of a statute are explicit and the intendment of the legislature is clear, there is no question of trying to resolve an imagined conflict between the provisions by employing the rule of harmonious construction. Thus, if the interpretation of the appellants were to be accepted then we would have to read Section 13 sans the proviso to Section 13(1) and sans Section 13(2). That, surely, could not have been the intention of the legislature Appeal not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2. Interpretation of the terms "judgment," "order," and "decree" as used in Section 13(1) of the said Act.
3. Applicability of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 in the context of appeals under the said Act.
4. Impact of Section 13(2) of the said Act on other laws and Letters Patent.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The core issue was whether the appeal against the order dated 20.12.2016 was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The respondents contended that the impugned order was not appealable under Order XLIII of the CPC, and Section 13(1) of the said Act limits appeals to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants argued that the impugned order was in the nature of a "judgment" and should be appealable. The court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as the impugned order did not fall within the orders specified in Order XLIII CPC.

2. Interpretation of "Judgment," "Order," and "Decree":
The court examined the definitions of "judgment," "order," and "decree" under the CPC. It clarified that a "judgment" is the statement given by the judge on the grounds of a decree or order, while a "decree" conclusively determines the rights of the parties, and an "order" is a formal expression of a decision that is not a decree. The court held that the term "judgment" in Section 13(1) of the said Act is a misnomer and should be interpreted as a "decree." The proviso to Section 13(1) restricts appeals to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC.

3. Applicability of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966:
The appellants argued that Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, which provides for appeals from judgments of a single judge, should apply. However, the court noted that Section 13(2) of the said Act, with its non-obstante clause, excludes the applicability of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, and any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the provisions of the said Act take precedence, and the appeal must be in accordance with the said Act.

4. Impact of Section 13(2) on Other Laws and Letters Patent:
Section 13(2) of the said Act begins with a non-obstante clause, stating that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. This provision overrides any other law or Letters Patent. The court emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory right and must be explicitly provided for in the statute. Since the impugned order was not appealable under the said Act or the CPC, the appeal was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the impugned order was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC. The court also clarified the interpretation of "judgment," "order," and "decree" in the context of the said Act and emphasized the overriding effect of Section 13(2) on other laws and Letters Patent.