9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 412 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of appeal - doctrine of harmonious construction - whether an appeal, not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is nonetheless maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015? Held that - Both the Commercial Courts Act as well as the detailed Arbitration Amendment Act of 2015, were brought into force on the same day, i.e. 23rd October, 2015, as a result of two reports of the Law Commission of India. An order which refers parties to arbitration under Section 8, not being appealable under Section 37(1)(a), would not be appealable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. Similarly, an appeal rejecting a plea referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act would equally not be appealable under Section 37(2)(a) and, therefore, under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is clear that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, being a general provision vis- -vis arbitration relating to appeals arising out of commercial disputes, would obviously not apply to cases covered by Section 50 of the Arbitration Act. Why Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was expressly included in the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, which is equally a special provision of appeal contained in a self-contained code, which in any case would be outside Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act? - Held that - Parliament may have found it necessary to emphasize the fact that an order referring parties to arbitration under Section 8 is not appealable under Section 37(1)(a) and would, therefore, not be appealable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act - In all arbitration cases of enforcement of foreign awards, it is Section 50 alone that provides an appeal. Having provided for an appeal, the forum of appeal is left to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from such orders . Section 50 properly read would, therefore, mean that if an appeal lies under the said provision, then alone would Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act be attracted as laying down the forum which will hear and decide such an appeal. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act must be construed in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Any construction of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which would lead to further delay, instead of an expeditious enforcement of a foreign award must, therefore, be eschewed. Even on applying the doctrine of harmonious construction of both statutes, it is clear that they are best harmonized by giving effect to the special statute i.e. the Arbitration Act, vis- -vis the more general statute, namely the Commercial Courts Act, being left to operate in spheres other than arbitration. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an appeal not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal Maintainability under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act vs. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act The core issue is whether an appeal, which is not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act, can be maintained under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. The court examined the legislative intent and the specific provisions of both Acts to determine the answer. Facts and Procedural History: - An arbitration award was passed on 28th April 2014, directing the appellants to pay a sum with compound interest. - The Appellate Tribunal modified the sum payable on 16th April 2015. - The appellants' subsequent appeals in the UK courts were rejected. - An execution petition was filed by the respondents in the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch, which was later transferred to the High Court of Gujarat. - The High Court dismissed the appellants' objections and allowed the execution petition, which the appellants appealed under the Commercial Courts Act. Arguments by Appellants: - The appellants argued that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act provides a right of appeal against any decision of the Commercial Division of a High Court. - They contended that since Section 50 of the Arbitration Act is not mentioned in the proviso to Section 13(1), the broad language of Section 13(1) should allow an appeal. - The appellants emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act should prevail due to its non-obstante clause in Section 21. Arguments by Respondents: - The respondents argued that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, and Section 50 impliedly bars appeals against orders allowing execution of foreign awards. - They cited the judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited, asserting that the Arbitration Act excludes the applicability of general law procedures. - The respondents stressed that allowing an appeal would contradict the objective of both Acts, which aim for the speedy resolution of disputes. Court's Analysis: - The court noted that both the Commercial Courts Act and the Arbitration Amendment Act of 2015 were enacted simultaneously, reflecting a legislative intent for speedy dispute resolution. - The court referred to the judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson, which established that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, implying that appeals not mentioned in Section 50 are not permissible. - The court observed that the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act lists specific orders under Order XLIII of the CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act as appealable, excluding others. - The court concluded that Section 50 of the Arbitration Act, being part of a self-contained code, excludes appeals not explicitly mentioned, and thus Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act cannot override this exclusion. Conclusion: - The court held that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act does not provide an additional right of appeal beyond what is specified in Section 50 of the Arbitration Act. - The appeals were dismissed, reinforcing that the legislative intent of both Acts is to ensure the speedy resolution of disputes and enforcement of foreign awards without unnecessary delays. Judgment: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act does not confer an additional right of appeal beyond what is provided in Section 50 of the Arbitration Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative intent of both Acts to expedite the resolution of commercial disputes and the enforcement of foreign awards.
|
