w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Oommen Thomas Panicker, Represented by Power of Attorney holder, Ommen Panicker v/s Monica Constructions, Represented by Partners R. Vinod & L. Krishnapriya & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- U. P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32201UP1999SGC024928

Company & Directors' Information:- D B POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109MP2006PLC019008

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40105WB1919PLC003263

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U40101WB2003PLC097340

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102MH2006PTC165430

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TG1996PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45201DL1996PLC080401

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109AP2005PLC047008

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102KA2002PTC030448

Company & Directors' Information:- S. E. POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40106GJ2010PLC091880

Company & Directors' Information:- E O S POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109MH1985PTC037094

Company & Directors' Information:- D C POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40109TG1996PLC025996

Company & Directors' Information:- U G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC074921

Company & Directors' Information:- A G R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG1997PTC028180

Company & Directors' Information:- N J R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC065101

Company & Directors' Information:- C P R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057937

Company & Directors' Information:- S T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC127181

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER PARTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057610

Company & Directors' Information:- J P G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC124763

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U50101WB1997PLC084060

Company & Directors' Information:- B O CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2000PTC103440

Company & Directors' Information:- V R G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208TN2013PTC090378

Company & Directors' Information:- G N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200KA2004PTC034839

Company & Directors' Information:- E C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1998PTC092928

Company & Directors' Information:- I P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC141372

Company & Directors' Information:- A R R S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202TZ2008PTC014926

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U45200DL1972PLC006224

Company & Directors' Information:- D N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2011PTC074563

Company & Directors' Information:- B V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106DL2011PTC213428

Company & Directors' Information:- A V THOMAS AND CO LTD [Active] CIN = U51109KL1935PLC000024

Company & Directors' Information:- D A P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1997PTC086056

Company & Directors' Information:- J THOMAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1947PTC015276

Company & Directors' Information:- M R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1987PTC041958

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1965PTC003067

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC052569

Company & Directors' Information:- J N C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC093071

Company & Directors' Information:- B R POWER LTD [Active] CIN = U40106WB1995PLC073567

Company & Directors' Information:- N M S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PTC089747

Company & Directors' Information:- P R D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC132422

Company & Directors' Information:- R A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL1999PTC101132

Company & Directors' Information:- S V P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15100KA2013PTC072347

Company & Directors' Information:- V G V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2003PTC010825

Company & Directors' Information:- P R B POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG1995PTC020647

Company & Directors' Information:- C K CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309DL2021PTC382589

Company & Directors' Information:- C L S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC074067

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300AP2012PTC084435

Company & Directors' Information:- R M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC136640

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2009PTC039089

Company & Directors' Information:- H M R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209WB1944PTC011901

Company & Directors' Information:- H A M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140214

Company & Directors' Information:- B M R C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC126958

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC154123

Company & Directors' Information:- N B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC153179

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900DL1995PTC070096

Company & Directors' Information:- V P V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TZ2002PTC010021

Company & Directors' Information:- M POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908MH2012PTC234343

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202WB1990PTC048623

Company & Directors' Information:- D B S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201BR1990PTC003954

Company & Directors' Information:- P R P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1995PTC032833

Company & Directors' Information:- N S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1997PLC088867

Company & Directors' Information:- B B CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1988PLC045084

Company & Directors' Information:- S V P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203KA2013PTC072347

Company & Directors' Information:- S. C. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400AS2012PTC010876

Company & Directors' Information:- K & R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2011PTC010822

Company & Directors' Information:- M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC148776

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2014PTC266873

Company & Directors' Information:- V Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2014PTC062964

Company & Directors' Information:- G V B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100TG1998PTC028935

Company & Directors' Information:- P K D CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB1980PTC032820

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TN2002PTC048600

Company & Directors' Information:- H K P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202OR2001PTC006458

Company & Directors' Information:- G S S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TZ1992PTC003665

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130723

Company & Directors' Information:- A G P CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AN2006PTC000078

Company & Directors' Information:- S I A CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1993PTC061189

Company & Directors' Information:- P H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125388

Company & Directors' Information:- M M K POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40106AP1998PTC030796

Company & Directors' Information:- G G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC028772

Company & Directors' Information:- N S V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70101WB1997PTC084753

Company & Directors' Information:- S M C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2000PTC123619

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PN2020PTC191603

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24248UP1984PTC006613

Company & Directors' Information:- H V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2008PTC183930

Company & Directors' Information:- K M S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26931TG1983PTC004119

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TG2000PTC035352

Company & Directors' Information:- K P C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45204DL2012PTC233771

Company & Directors' Information:- THOMAS AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1997PTC085284

Company & Directors' Information:- B K VINOD & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1997PTC087123

Company & Directors' Information:- C R E M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101DL2001PTC111631

Company & Directors' Information:- D T POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40300AP2015PTC097226

Company & Directors' Information:- A G M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202KL2002PTC015340

Company & Directors' Information:- A N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC035171

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909GJ1947PTC000819

Company & Directors' Information:- D N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203AS1983PTC002024

Company & Directors' Information:- O L G POWER P LTD [Active] CIN = U30007TN1991PTC020898

Company & Directors' Information:- P S V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC064768

Company & Directors' Information:- K B C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH2011PLC032890

Company & Directors' Information:- G S POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2010PLC054033

Company & Directors' Information:- T T S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45403KL2020PTC064299

Company & Directors' Information:- V B R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1997PTC027406

Company & Directors' Information:- M R Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC172953

Company & Directors' Information:- V S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA1980PTC003939

Company & Directors' Information:- J B CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1981PLC034263

Company & Directors' Information:- S D R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC012083

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. B. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC281859

Company & Directors' Information:- V N CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2015PTC083425

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER AND POWER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31300AS1989PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- R D S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202PN2001PTC016041

Company & Directors' Information:- P D M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40104AS2014PTC011780

Company & Directors' Information:- T R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC161605

Company & Directors' Information:- J B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130303

Company & Directors' Information:- S B S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100AP2012PTC083965

Company & Directors' Information:- A I B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309KA2021PTC146378

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND V CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65992TG1987PTC007890

Company & Directors' Information:- M R G CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MP1994PTC008620

Company & Directors' Information:- P D R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100KA1986PTC007383

Company & Directors' Information:- A P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1979PTC032397

Company & Directors' Information:- J N D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1997PTC088802

Company & Directors' Information:- P. R. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MP1982PTC002078

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1992PTC051503

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1999PTC031067

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTIONS CO OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UP1946PTC001471

Company & Directors' Information:- K S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UP1982PTC005640

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45202CT2007PTC020304

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40105PB2010PLC033765

Company & Directors' Information:- I M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122889

Company & Directors' Information:- J V R INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC129898

Company & Directors' Information:- S J M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101KA1997PTC023146

Company & Directors' Information:- L S CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA2012PTC063895

Company & Directors' Information:- G D CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1985PTC039687

Company & Directors' Information:- S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19202DL1986PTC026505

Company & Directors' Information:- G M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40105PN2003PTC017857

Company & Directors' Information:- B G CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1989PTC046859

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31102WB1983PTC036315

Company & Directors' Information:- J & J CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U70109WB1991PTC052664

Company & Directors' Information:- M C CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1985PTC039150

Company & Directors' Information:- N C CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC042382

Company & Directors' Information:- M R B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201CH1995PTC017071

Company & Directors' Information:- B A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201PB2002PTC024960

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND W CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC170930

Company & Directors' Information:- A S D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125030

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200AP1987PTC008025

Company & Directors' Information:- G K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AS1988PTC003035

Company & Directors' Information:- H H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1980PTC022610

Company & Directors' Information:- S D C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2011PTC074468

Company & Directors' Information:- C J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1996PTC082457

Company & Directors' Information:- R R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1989PTC002234

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109PY2004PTC001824

Company & Directors' Information:- N D F C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MH2004PTC144493

Company & Directors' Information:- U S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U40103MH2009PTC189364

Company & Directors' Information:- J H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1998PTC115057

Company & Directors' Information:- S. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101MH2003PTC139538

Company & Directors' Information:- L D F CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2009PTC037275

Company & Directors' Information:- K P N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2014PTC092096

Company & Directors' Information:- J D CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC071441

Company & Directors' Information:- R . C . S . CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911UP1999PTC024964

Company & Directors' Information:- U R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC120032

Company & Directors' Information:- H M K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2012PTC184485

Company & Directors' Information:- O P B K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC047760

Company & Directors' Information:- G A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109333

Company & Directors' Information:- A J N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142336

Company & Directors' Information:- J. N. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR2011PTC017019

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45500AP2016PTC104385

Company & Directors' Information:- K P M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2008PTC046804

Company & Directors' Information:- U E CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA2002PTC030635

Company & Directors' Information:- U D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR1990PTC002649

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1989PTC017300

Company & Directors' Information:- R S S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202JH1990PTC003927

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1992PTC015113

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1949PTC007864

Company & Directors' Information:- I. A. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TG1998PTC029569

Company & Directors' Information:- B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1972PTC015731

Company & Directors' Information:- S A K CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2007PTC055386

Company & Directors' Information:- L & I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UR2006PTC032334

Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UP1990PTC011951

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER-X PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1970PTC005331

Company & Directors' Information:- P B R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AP1998PTC028800

Company & Directors' Information:- S K POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31101KA2006PTC039172

Company & Directors' Information:- I R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC084160

Company & Directors' Information:- M A M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2003PTC010667

Company & Directors' Information:- R G D POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U41000TG1996PTC023809

Company & Directors' Information:- V. M. R. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202AP1996PTC023724

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1993PTC013953

Company & Directors' Information:- A. W. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MP2009PTC022110

Company & Directors' Information:- S B R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70100MH1982PTC027337

Company & Directors' Information:- G V K CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1985PTC011867

Company & Directors' Information:- G T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101UP1980PTC004982

Company & Directors' Information:- I. N. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003931

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. B. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039632

Company & Directors' Information:- M M R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31104DL2008PTC174079

Company & Directors' Information:- N. M. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC067227

Company & Directors' Information:- S J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45207HR2012PTC045937

Company & Directors' Information:- B N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR1981PTC001015

Company & Directors' Information:- D F CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1991PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KL1980PTC003192

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400PB2009PTC032554

Company & Directors' Information:- T C POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101PB2009PTC033405

Company & Directors' Information:- M T M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2005PTC011626

Company & Directors' Information:- I S K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TN2006PTC059103

Company & Directors' Information:- K R V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC075836

Company & Directors' Information:- R S I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC078562

Company & Directors' Information:- D & Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2009PTC134889

Company & Directors' Information:- K & Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200PN2014PTC150194

Company & Directors' Information:- L. K. M. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2006PTC164835

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2008PTC178957

Company & Directors' Information:- K & H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC218327

Company & Directors' Information:- J J K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2013PTC244977

Company & Directors' Information:- H. & T. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106MH2016PTC287646

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107MH2010PTC206447

Company & Directors' Information:- M K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2000PTC127425

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M-POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262999

Company & Directors' Information:- S R R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202MH1982PTC027359

Company & Directors' Information:- 4 F CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2012PTC081501

Company & Directors' Information:- N N C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400TG2015PTC099840

Company & Directors' Information:- J S J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TN2016PTC103860

Company & Directors' Information:- Q AND Q CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043373

Company & Directors' Information:- V M N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2013PTC087032

Company & Directors' Information:- A C R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2010PTC040987

Company & Directors' Information:- W N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101JK2013PTC004009

Company & Directors' Information:- S I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH2014PTC035188

Company & Directors' Information:- R S A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2009PTC193200

Company & Directors' Information:- B B R L CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC217588

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2012PTC243738

Company & Directors' Information:- A M T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC268935

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2009PTC190268

Company & Directors' Information:- G T B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2009PTC193204

Company & Directors' Information:- G N D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2009PTC193472

Company & Directors' Information:- R P T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2007PTC055960

Company & Directors' Information:- M N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2014PTC094893

Company & Directors' Information:- C B N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400HR2010PTC040454

Company & Directors' Information:- Y & M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400HR2011PTC044664

Company & Directors' Information:- C K S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101KA2010PTC052199

Company & Directors' Information:- G C I POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107KA2010PTC053656

Company & Directors' Information:- M P K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201KA2001PTC029100

Company & Directors' Information:- H K G N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA2003PTC032055

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100GJ2009PTC058005

Company & Directors' Information:- J R J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300GJ2015PTC082396

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201KL1995PTC008623

Company & Directors' Information:- R B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102AP1989PTC010527

Company & Directors' Information:- A P N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201HP1995PTC017344

Company & Directors' Information:- M T J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA1991PTC011684

Company & Directors' Information:- V N V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1992PTC050037

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH2000PTC129703

Company & Directors' Information:- H B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH1974PTC017866

Company & Directors' Information:- D V N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG2007PTC053069

Company & Directors' Information:- D B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC053917

Company & Directors' Information:- T V L S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057723

Company & Directors' Information:- N N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG2006PTC050240

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CT1983PTC002128

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC161616

Company & Directors' Information:- A R H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC155870

Company & Directors' Information:- E M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2008PTC185365

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201RJ1983PTC002720

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1944PTC004222

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1951PLC010154

    F.A.O. No. 44 of 2021

    Decided On, 20 September 2021

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R. ANITHA

    For the Appellant: S.A. Razzak, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.B. Krishnan, Sabu George, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Anil K. Narendran, J.1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2018 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, a suit filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff against the appellant and the 2nd respondent to realise a sum of Rs.85,80,203/- towards balance cost on works undertaken by the 1st defendant in a construction contract. The plaintiff has also sought for a declaration that termination of the said contract by the 1st defendant is illegal. In O.S.No.202 of 2018, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.2 of 2020, an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to refer the parties to arbitration. The plaintiff filed objections. After considering the rival contentions, the court below, by the order dated 01.03.2021, dismissed that application as not maintainable, on the ground that, since the amount sought to be recovered is in excess of Rs.85,00,000/-, in the dispute arising out of a construction and infrastructure contract, O.S.No.202 of 2018 is liable to be transferred to the Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in view of the provisions under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court, under Section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Initially, Registry has not numbered this appeal raising certain doubts as to its maintainability. On 08.07.2021, when the unnumbered appeal came up for consideration, after hearing preliminary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we found that the question of maintainability of the appeal requires detailed consideration with notice to the respondents. Therefore, Registry was directed to number the appeal, subject to the condition that the question of maintainability will be decided with notice to the respondents. Thereafter, on the same day, this Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the respondents, along with a copy of the order dated 08.07.2021, returnable within ten days.3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- 1stdefendant and also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff on the question of maintainability of this appeal. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2018, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein, is the Arbitrator as per the contract.4. On the question of maintainability of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant-1st defendant contended that, the impugned order of the court below, dismissing an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as not maintainable, is appealable under Section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 37(1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff contended that, the impugned order of the court below dismissing an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as not maintainable, in view of the provisions under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, is not an order of the court below refusing to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which alone is appealable under Section 37(1)(a) of the said Act. In view of the prohibition contained in Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, such an order is not appealable.5. As already noticed, O.S.No.202 of 2018 is one filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree to realise a sum of Rs.85,80,203/- from the 1st defendant towards alleged balance cost of the work done under a construction contract. In that suit, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to refer the dispute to arbitration, under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.6. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as also to define the law relating to conciliation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the term ‘court’. As per Section 2(e)(i), ‘court’ means, in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal civil court, or any court of small causes. Section 5 of the Act deals with extent of judicial intervention. As per Section 5, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part [i.e., Part I], no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.6.1. Section 8 of the Act deals with power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement. Section 8, after the substitution of Section 8(1) and insertion of the proviso to Section 8(2), by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act No.3 of 2016) reads thus;“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.- (1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.Provided that where the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under sub-section (1), and the said agreement or certified copy is retained by the other party to that agreement, then, the party so applying shall file such application along with a copy of the arbitration agreement and a petition praying the court to call upon the other party to produce the original arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy before that court.(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”6.2. As per Section 8(1) of the Act, a judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.6.3. In Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. [(2012) 9 SCC 552] a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, use of the term ‘judicial authority’, in Section 5 and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a recognition by Parliament that Part I will apply to international commercial arbitrations held outside India. The term ‘judicial authority’ is a legacy from the 1940 Act. The corresponding provision of Section 34 of the 1940 Act, which covered purely domestic arbitrations, between two or more Indian parties, within the territory of India, also refers to ‘judicial authority’. The term ‘judicial authority’ has been retained especially in view of policy of least intervention, which cannot be limited only to the courts. This is clearly in recognition of the phenomenon that the judicial control of commercial disputes is no longer in the exclusive jurisdiction of courts. There are many statutory bodies, tribunals which would have adjudicatory jurisdiction in very complex commercial matters. Section 5 would be equally applicable to such bodies. The use of the term ‘judicial authority’ in no manner has any reference to arbitrations not held in India. It is in conformity with clause (v) of the objects and reasons for the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which has been given statutory recognition in Section 5.6.4. In Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. [(2021) 2 SCC 1], propounding a four-fold test, the Apex Court held that, a dispute in an arbitration agreement is not arbitrable: (1) when cause of action and subject-matter of the dispute relates to actions in rem, that do not pertain to subordinate rights in personam that arise from rights in rem; (2) when cause of action and subject-matter of the dispute affects third-party rights; have erga omnes effect; require centralised adjudication, and mutual adjudication would not be appropriate and enforceable; (3) when cause of action and subject-matter of the dispute relates to inalienable sovereign and public interest functions of the State and hence mutual adjudication would be unenforceable; (4) when the subjectmatter of the dispute is expressly or by necessary implication non-arbitrable as per mandatory statute(s). These tests are not watertight compartments; they dovetail and overlap, albeit when applied holistically and pragmatically will help and assist in determining and ascertaining with great degree of certainty when as per law in India, a dispute or subject-matter is nonarbitrable. Only when the answer is affirmative that the subject-matter of the dispute would be non-arbitrable. However, the aforesaid principles have to be applied with care and caution.6.5. Section 37 of the Act deals with the appealable orders. Section 37, after the substitution of Section 37(1), by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.33 of 2019) and substitution of Section 37(1)(a) and (b), by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act No.3 of 2016) reads thus;“37. Appealable orders.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order, namely:-(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8;(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9;(c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.(2) An appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal-(a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 16; or(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17.(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.”6.6. As per Section 37(1)(a) of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from an order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8, to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order.6.7. In Chintels (India) Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [(2021) 4 SCC 602] the Apex Court held that, appeal against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is maintainable under Section 37(1)(c), as such an order amounts to order refusing to set aside award.7. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, originally titled as the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the constitution of Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.7.1. Section 2(c) of the Act defines ‘commercial dispute’. As per Section 2(c)(vi), ‘commercial dispute’ means a dispute arising out of construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders. As per Explanation to Section 2(c), a commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because (a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property; (b) one of the contracting parties is the State or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or a private body carrying out public functions.7.2. Section 2(i) of the Act defines the term ‘specified value’. Section 2(i) of the Act, after its substitution by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.28 of 2018), defines the term ‘specified value’ to mean, in relation to a commercial dispute, the value of the subjectmatter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12, which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government. It is pertinent to note that, by Act No.28 of 2018, the words ‘which shall not be less than one crore rupees’ in Section 2(i) was substituted with the words ‘which shall not be less than three lakh rupees’, with effect from 03.05.2018.7.3. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP [(2020) 15 SCC 585] the Apex Court held that, only the disputes which actually answer the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ as provided under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act must be entertained by Commercial Courts. A strict construction to provisions of the said Act is therefore required in this regard. Else the same would defeat the very object and purpose of the said Act, i.e., speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes.7.4. Section 3 of the Act deals with constitution of Commercial Courts. Section 3, after its substitution by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.28 of 2018), reads thus;“3. Constitution of Commercial Courts.- (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those courts under this Act:Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.(2) The State Government shall, after consultation, with the concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall extend and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter such limits.(3) The State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the Judge or Judges, of a Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a court below the level of a District Judge.”7.5. Section 6 of the Act deals with jurisdiction of Commercial Courts. As per Section 6, the Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. As per Explanation to Section 6, for the purposes of this Section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested jurisdiction, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted as per the provisions of Sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.7.6. Section 9 of the Act, which dealt with transfer of suit if the counter-claim in a commercial dispute is of specified value, was omitted by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.28 of 2018), with effect from 03.05.2018.7.7. Section 10 of the Act deals with jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters. Section 10 reads thus;“10. Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters.- Where the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and-(1) If such arbitration is an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that have been filed in a High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has been constituted in such High Court.(2) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that have been filed on the original side of the High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has been constituted in such High Court.(3) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that would ordinarily lie before any principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High Court) shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial Court has been constituted.”7.8. As per Section 10(3) of the Act, w here the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is other than an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that would ordinarily lie before any principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High Court) shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial Court has been constituted.7.9. Section 11 of the Act deals with bar of jurisdiction of commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions. As per Section 11, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a Commercial Court or a Commercial Division shall not entertain or decide any suit, application or proceedings relating to any commercial dispute in respect of which the jurisdiction of the civil court is either expressly or impliedly barred under any other law for the time being in force.7.10. Section 13 of the Act deals with appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions. Section 13, after its substitution by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.28 of 2018), reads thus;“13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.- (1) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order.(1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”7.11. As per the proviso to Section 13(1A), an appeal shall lie from the orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As per Section 13(3), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, 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.7.12. Section 15 of the Act deals with transfer of pending cases. Section 15, after its substitution by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.28 of 2018), reads thus;“15. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division.(2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value pending in any civil court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court:Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).(3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer.(4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines or issue such further directions as may be necessary for a speedy and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in accordance with Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not apply to such transferred suit or application and the court may, in its discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written statement shall be filed.(5) In the event that such suit or application is not transferred in the manner specified in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the court before which it is pending and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer shall be final and binding.”7.13. As per Section 15(2) of the Act, all suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value pending in any civil court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court. As per the proviso to Section 15(2), no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under sub-section (1) or subsection (2).7.14. As per Section 15(3) of the Act, where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer. As per Section 15(5), in the event that such suit or application is not transferred in the manner specified in Section 13(1) or 13(2) or 13(3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the court before which it is pending and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer shall be final and binding.7.15. Section 21 deals with overriding effect of the Commercial Courts Act. As per Section 21, save as otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law for the time being in force other than this Act.8. In Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation [(2018) 14 SCC 715], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether an appeal, not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is nonetheless maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. The Apex Court noticed that, Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act is in two parts. The main provision 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. [AIR 1959 SC 713]. The proviso goes on to state that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by the Commercial Division of the High Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The orders that are not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code would, therefore, not be appealable, and appeals that are mentioned in Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act alone are appeals that can be made to the Commercial Appellate Division of a High Court. Thus, 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 Section 16(2) and (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would equally not be appealable under Section 37(2)( a ) and, therefore, under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.8.1. In Kandla Export Corporation, before the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that, Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not find any mention in the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act and therefore, notwithstanding that an appeal would not lie under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act, it would lie under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contains the expression “and from no others” which is conspicuous by its absence in Section 50 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act. The Apex Court held that, given the judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. [(2011) 8 SCC 333], which Parliament is presumed to know when it enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and given the fact that no change was made in Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, when the Commercial Courts Act was brought into force, it is clear that Section 50 is a provision contained in a self-contained code on matters pertaining to arbitration, which is exhaustive in nature. It carries the negative import mentioned in Para.89 of Fuerst Day Lawson that appeals which are not mentioned therein, are not permissible. This being the case, 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.8.2. In Kandla Export Corporation, on the question as to why Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation 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, the Apex Court answered that, this was done ex abundanti cautela. As Section 37 itself was amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which came into force on the same day as the Commercial Courts Act, Parliament thought, in its wisdom, that it was necessary to emphasise that the amended Section 37 would have precedence over the general provision contained in Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. Incidentally, the amendment of 2015 introduced one more category into the category of appealable orders in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, namely, a category where an order is made under Section 8 refusing to refer parties to arbitration. Parliament may have found it necessary to emphasise 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. Whatever may be the ultimate reason for including Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the proviso to Section 13(1), the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson would apply, and this being so, appeals filed under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act would have to follow the drill of Section 50 alone. This, in fact, follows from the language of Section 50 itself. 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 authorised 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.8.3. In Kandla Export Corporation, the Apex Court noticed that, in Sumitomo Corpn. v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. [(2008) 4 SCC 91], in the context of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Sections 10(1)(a) and 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, it was held that, once an appeal is provided for in Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court authorised by law to hear such appeals would then be found in Sections 10(1)( a ) and 10F of the Companies Act. The present case is a parallel instance of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing for an appeal, and Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act providing the forum for such appeal. In the present case, as no appeal lies under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act, no forum can be provided for. What is important to note is that it is Section 50 that provides for an appeal, and not the letters patent, given the subject matter of appeal. Also, the appeal has to be adjudicated within the parameters of Section 50 alone. Concomitantly, where Section 50 excludes an appeal, no such appeal will lie.8.4. In Kandla Export Corporation, the Apex Court noticed that, given the objects of both the statutes, it is clear that arbitration itself is meant to be a speedy resolution of disputes between parties. Equally, enforcement of foreign awards should take place as soon as possible, if India is to remain as an equal partner, commercially speaking, in the international community. In point of fact, the raison d'tre for the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act is that commercial disputes involving high amounts of money should be speedily decided. Given the objects of both the enactments, if we were to provide an additional appeal, when Section 50 does away with an appeal so as to speedily enforce foreign awards, we would be turning the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act on their heads.8.5. In Fuerst Day Lawson [(2011) 8 SCC 333], a decision relied on in Kandla Export Corporation, the common question that arose for consideration by the Apex Court was as to whether an order, though not appealable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would nevertheless be subject to appeal under the relevant provision of the Letters Patent of the High Court. In other words even though the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not envisage or permit an appeal from the order, the party aggrieved by it can still have his way, bypassing the said Act and taking recourse to another jurisdiction. Before the Apex Court it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent is an independent jurisdiction and as long as the order qualifies for an appeal under the Letters Patent, an appeal from that order would be maintainable before the High Court. The Apex Court noticed that the Arbitration Act, 1940 was held to be a self-contained code, in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. [(2004) 11 SCC 672]. If the Arbitration Act, 1940 was held to be a self-contained code, on matters pertaining to arbitration, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which consolidates, amends and designs the law relating to arbitration to bring it, as much as possible, in harmony with the UNCITRAL Model must be held only to be more so. Once it is held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a selfcontained code and exhaustive, then it must also be held that it carries with it “a negative import that only such acts as are mentioned in the Act are permissible to be done and acts or things not mentioned therein are not permissible to be done”. In other words, a letters patent appeal would be excluded by the application of one of the general principles that, where the Special Act sets out a self-contained code, the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded. Therefore the Apex Court held that no Letters Patent appeal will lie against an order which is not appealable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.9. In Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. [(2020) 15 SCC 706], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the question that arose for consideration of the Apex Court was relating to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in matters that are decided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Apex Court noticed that, under Section 29A of the Act, which was inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2016, a time limit was made within which arbitral awards must be made, namely, 12 months from the date the Arbitral Tribunal enters upon the reference. Section 34(6) of the Act, added by the same amendment states that, the applications under Section 34 for setting aside arbitral award are to be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in Section 34(5) is served upon the other parties. Given the aforesaid statutory provision and given the fact that the 1996 Act repealed three previous enactments in order that there be speedy disposal of all matters covered by it, it is clear that the statutory policy of the Act is that not only are time limits set down for disposal of the arbitral proceedings themselves but time limits have also been set down for Section 34 references to be decided. Equally, in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd. [(2020) 2 SCC 111], the Apex Court has imposed the selfsame limitation on first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, so that there be a timely resolution of all matters which are covered by arbitration awards. The non obstante clause contained in Section 5 of the Act, which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in matters that arise under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in that Part. Section 37 of the Act grants a constricted right of first appeal against certain judgments and orders and no others. Further, the statutory mandate also provides for one bite at the cherry, and interdicts a second appeal being filed [see: Section 37(2) of the Act]. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. What is important to note is that, though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated as above so that interference is restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction.10. In Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 8], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the question that arose for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the arbitral process could be interfered with under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and under what circumstance. The Apex Court noticed that, non obstante clause is provided in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to uphold the intention of the legislature as provided in the Preamble to adopt UNCITRAL Model Law and Rules, to reduce excessive judicial interference which is not contemplated under the said Act. The Act itself gives various procedures and forums to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator. The framework clearly portrays an intention to address most of the issues within the ambit of the Act itself, without there being scope for any extra statutory mechanism to provide just and fair solutions. Any party can enter into an arbitration agreement for resolving any disputes capable of being arbitrable. Parties, while entering into such agreements, need to fulfill the basic ingredients provided under Section 7 of the said Act. Arbitration being a creature of contract, gives a flexible framework for the parties to agree for their own procedure with minimalistic stipulations under the Act. If parties fail to refer a matter to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the procedure agreed by them, then a party can take recourse for court assistance under Section 8 or 11 of the Act.10.1. In Bhaven Construction, the Appellant acted in accordance with the procedure laid down under the agreement to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, without the 1st respondent mounting a judicial challenge at that stage. The 1st respondent then appeared before the sole arbitrator and challenged the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator, in terms of Section 16(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent impugned the order passed by the arbitrator under Section 16(2) of the Act through a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court noticed that, in the usual course, the Act provides for a mechanism of challenge under Section 34. The opening phase of Section 34 reads as “recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3)”. The use of term ‘only’ as occurring under the provision serves two purposes of making the enactment a complete code and lay down the procedure. In any case, the hierarchy in our legal framework mandates that a legislative enactment cannot curtail a Constitutional right. In Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, [(2011) 14 SCC 337] it was held that, there cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261]. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.10.2. In Bhaven Construction the Apex Court held that, it is therefore, prudent for a Judge to not exercise discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the procedure established under the enactment. This power needs to be exercised in exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left remediless under the statute or a clear ‘bad faith’ shown by one of the parties. This high standard set by the Apex Court is in terms of the legislative intention to make the arbitration fair and efficient. The Apex Court found that the 1st respondent has not been able to show exceptional circumstance or ‘bad faith’ on the part of tha Appellant, to invoke the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt the ambit of Article 227 is broad and pervasive, however, the High Court should not have used its inherent power to interject the arbitral process at this stage.11. In State of Kerala v. Somdatt Builders Ltd. [2012 (2) KLT 64], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, a Division Bench of this Court held that, the only provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for an appeal to the High Court from the order of the court dealing with an application for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is Section 37(1), which enumerates the orders which are appealable under that provision. The legislature, in its wisdom, has categorically expressed that an appeal shall lie from the orders enumerated in Section 37(1)(a) and (b) 'and from no others'. The use of the phrase 'and from no others' within brackets in Section 37(1) is a legislative device used to keep reminding that no appeal other than that which would fall in Section 37(1)(a) and (b) would lie. Section 5 of the Act restricts the extent of judicial intervention. The appeal in question was, admittedly, against an order by which the court refused to grant leave to amend an application filed under Section 34 of the Act. The Division Bench held that, in terms of what is noted on the issue of jurisdiction referable to the provisions under Section 37 and also, Section 5 of the Act, no appeal lies against an order refusing leave to amend an application filed under Section 34 of the Act.12. In Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt. Ltd. v. Cocosath Health Products [2020 (6) KLT 620], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the question that arose for consideration of a learned Single Judge of this Court was whether an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by a Commercial Court appealable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. In that case, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the District Court, Ernakulam, against the petitioners. That application was transferred to the Commercial Court, Ernakulam (Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam) and numbered as C.M.A.(Arb.)No.8 of 2020. As per judgment dated 14.09.2020, the Commercial Court allowed that application, restraining the respondents from appointing any persons and/or business establishments as the exclusive global marketer or distributor for the distribution, marketing or sale of the products of the 1st respondent company and from transferring to any third parties the product know-how or confidential information of the products till arbitration proceedings are commenced in the case. Challenging the legality and propriety of the said judgment, original petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.12.1. In Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt. Ltd., on the facts of the case on hand, the learned Single Judge noticed that, the impugned order is an order of injunction. It is appealable under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is also appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Section 37(1)(b) states that an appeal shall lie from an order granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the said Act. Right of appeal is the creature of a statute. It is well settled that right of appeal is a substantive right. Nothing contained in Section 13(1) or (2) of the Commercial Courts Act curtails this right of appeal. The proviso to Section 13(1A) restricts the right of appeal from orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the proviso to Section 13(1A) would be meaningless. Moreover, in order to find out whether an appeal against an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is maintainable or not, the provisions of the said Act have to be looked into. There is no independent right of appeal provided under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. It merely provides the forum of filing appeals. Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act creates the right to file an appeal against an order granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the said Act. It is the parameters of Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act alone which have to be looked at in order to determine whether an appeal against an order under Section 9 of the said Act is maintainable or not [See: BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. - (2020) 4 SCC 234]. The question whether the proviso in Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act applies only to Section 13(1A) or whether it applies to Section 13(1) also, does not arise for consideration, since the order impugned in the original petition is an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and therefore, appealable under Section 37 of the said Act, which is specifically mentioned in the proviso. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, passed by a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge is appealable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.12.2. In Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt. Ltd. the learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, the remedy of appeal against an order provided under a statute is an absolute bar in entertaining an application or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge held that, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order to keep the tribunals and the courts subordinate to it 'within the bounds of their authority'. The High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. However, when there is a remedy of appeal before a civil court available to an aggrieved person and such remedy is not availed of by him, it would deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since the petitioners have not shown any reason for not availing the remedy of appeal against the order impugned in this original petition, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the said order, invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.13. In Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 557 - Civil Appeal No.4492-93 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021], a decision in the additional list of citation dated 09.08.2021 filed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, with copy to the learned counsel for the appellant, one of the questions that arose for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether an order passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in enforcement of the award of an Emergency Arbitrator by a learned Single Judge of the High Court is appealable. The appellant initiated arbitration proceedings and filed an application on 05.10.2020 seeking emergency interim relief under the Singapore international Arbitration Centre Rules (SIAC Rules), asking for injunctions against the aforesaid transaction. The Emergency Arbitrator passed interim award, on 25.10.2020, granting injunctions/directions. The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the High Court of Delhi to enforce the interim award of the Emergency Arbitrator in SIAC Arbitration No. 960 of 2020. The seat of the arbitral proceedings was New Delhi, and as per the arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties, SIAC Rules apply. On 18.03.2020, the learned Single Judge passed a detailed judgment giving reasons for an order made under Section 17(2) of the Act, read with Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which it was held that an Emergency Arbitrator's award is an order under Section 17(1) of the Act. Against the said judgment, F.A.O.No.51 of 2021 was filed by the 1st respondent. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by the order dated 22.03.2021 stayed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Against the said order, Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court by its order dated 19.04.2021 stayed further proceedings before the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, and set the matter down for final disposal.13.1. In Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, on the question as to maintainability of the appeal that has been filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Apex Court noticed that the Law Commission recommended an amendment to Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to provide the arbitral tribunal the same powers as a court would have under Section 9. Section 9(1) of the Act, after setting out in clauses (i) and (ii) what interim measures or protection could be granted, then goes on to add, “and the court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it”. The arbitral tribunal cannot itself enforce its orders, which can only be done by a court with reference to the Code of Civil Procedure. But the court, when it acts under Section 17(2), acts in the same manner as it acts to enforce a court order made under Section 9(1). If this is so, then what is clear is that the order of the arbitral tribunal gets enforced under Section 17(2) read with the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 17(2) creates a legal fiction. This fiction is created only for the purpose of enforceability of interim orders made by the arbitral tribunal. To extend it to appeals being filed under the Code of Civil Procedure would be a big leap not envisaged by the legislature at all in enacting the said fiction. There can be no doubt that the legal fiction created under Section 17(2) of the Act for enforcement of interim orders is created only for the limited purpose of enforcement as a decree of the court. To extend this fiction to encompass appeals from such orders is to go beyond the clear intention of the legislature. The argument in stressing the words “under the Code of Civil Procedure” in Section 17(2), thus holds no water as a limited fiction for the purpose of enforcement cannot be elevated to the level of a genie which has been released from a statutory provision and which would encompass matters never in the contemplation of the legislature. Coming to the appeal provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Apex Court found that, there can be no doubt that Section 37 is a complete code so far as appeals from orders and awards made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are concerned. This has further been strengthened by the addition of the non-obstante clause by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019.13.2. In Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, the Apex Court noticed that, in Kandla Export Corporation [(2018) 14 SCC 715], in the context of an appeal under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Apex Court reiterated that Section 50 of the Act is a provision contained in a self-contained code on matters pertaining to arbitration, which is exhaustive in nature. It carries the negative import that appeals which are not mentioned therein, are not permissible. This being the case, 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 and Conciliation Act. The judgment in Kandla Export Corporation is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code on matters pertaining to arbitration, which is exhaustive in nature. The appeal provision in that case (Section 50) was held to carry a negative import that only such matters as are mentioned in the Section are permissible, and matters not mentioned therein cannot be brought in. It was further held that what follows from this is that the substantive provision of appeal is contained in Section 50 of the Act, which alone must be read, Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act being a general provision, which must give way to the specific provision contained in Section 50.14. In BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. [(2020) 4 SCC 234] on the maintainability of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in a case in which an application under Section 34 of the Act was ordered to be transferred from a court which had no jurisdiction to a court which had jurisdiction, the Apex Court held that, there is no independent right of appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which merely provides the forum of filing appeals, it is the parameters of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alone which have to be looked at in order to determine whether the present appeals were maintainable. Section 37(1) makes it clear that appeals shall only lie from the orders set out in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) and from no others. The pigeonhole that the High Court in the impugned judgment [NHPC Ltd. v. Jaiparkash Associates Ltd. - 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1304] has chosen to say that the appeals in the present cases were maintainable is sub-clause (c). According to the High Court, even where a Section 34 application is ordered to be returned to the appropriate court, such order would amount to an order “refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34”. Under the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure is also mentioned. As per Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) of the Code, an appeal shall lie under the provisions of Section 104, from an order under Order VII, Rule 10 returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court except where the procedure specified in Rule 10A of Order VII has been followed. This provision is conspicuous by its absence in Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which alone can be looked at for the purpose of filing appeals against orders setting aside, or refusing to set aside awards under Section 34. Also, what is missed by the impugned judgment [NHPC Ltd. v. Jaiparkash Associates Ltd. - 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1304] is the words “under Section 34”. Thus, the refusal to set aside an arbitral award must be under Section 34, i.e., after the grounds set out in Section 34 have been applied to the arbitral award in question, and after the court has turned down such grounds. Admittedly, on the facts of these cases, there was no adjudication under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act - all that was done was that the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram allowed an application filed under Section 151 read with Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining that the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the Section 34 application, and therefore, such application would have to be returned to the competent court situate at New Delhi. The Apex Court found that this judgment is determinative of the issue before it, as it specifically ruled out appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure when it comes to orders being made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.14.1. In BGS SGS Soma JV the Apex Court noticed that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not remain untouched by the 2015 Amendment Act. As a matter of fact, a new category of appeals was infused into the said provision by adding a new sub-section (1)(a), which provides as follows; notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order, namely, (a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8. Despite Section 17 being amended by the same Amendment Act, by making Section 17(1) the mirror image of Section 9(1) as to the interim measures that can be made, and by adding Section 17(2) as a consequence thereof, significantly, no change was made in Section 37(2)(b) to bring it in line with Order XLIII, Rule 1(r). The said Section continued to provide appeals only from an order granting or refusing to grant any interim measure under Section 17. There can be no doubt that granting or refusing to grant any interim measure under Section 17 would only refer to the grant or non-grant of interim measures under Section 17(1)(i) and 17(1)(ii). In fact, the opening words of Section 17(2), namely, “subject to any orders passed in appeal under Section 37” also demonstrates the legislature's understanding that orders that are passed in an appeal under Section 37 are relatable only to Section 17(1). For example, an appeal against an order refusing an injunction may be allowed, in which case Section 17(2) then kicks in to enforce the order passed in appeal. Also, the legislature made no amendment to the granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 to bring it in line with Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code, under Section 37(1)(b). What is clear from this is that enforcement proceedings are not covered by the appeal provision. The Apex Court thus answered the second question posed by declaring that no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Apex Court vacated all interim orders and set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.15. In Sadasivan K. v. Surendradas [2020 (5) KHC 461] a Full Bench of this Court, in which one among us [M.R. Anita, J] is a party, noticed that, Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that an appeal shall lie from the orders mentioned in the Section, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders. In Section 104(1) of the Code, a list of appealable orders has been specifically shown. The words "save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force" occurring in Section 104 of the Code were not there in Act XIV of 1882. Section 104 and Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code together specify a full list of appealable orders. Stated differently, no other order passed in a suit or proceeding can be challenged in an appeal. On a conjoint reading of these provisions, it will be clear from clause (i) of Section 104(1) of the Code that these provisions are complementary to each other, as it is specifically mentioned in the above clause that any order made under the Rules, from which an appeal is expressly allowed by the Rules, also should be treated as orders from which appeal could be laid. As per Order XLIII, Rule 1A of the Code, where any order, other than those mentioned in Rule 1, is made against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, contend that such order should not have been made and the judgment should not have been pronounced. It is pellucid that orders from which appeal lies are clearly mentioned in Section 104 and Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code; any other order made against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such a party, he may take up a specific ground, by challenging the order, in the memorandum of appeal, to be filed against the decree by invoking Section 96, read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code. On a close look at Section 104 and Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code, the Full Bench concluded that only a limited number of orders, allowable in a suit or proceeding, alone are made appealable. Rest of the orders can be challenged in a regular appeal filed against the decree, as provided under Order XLIII, Rule 1A of the Code.16. In the instant case, by the impugned order dated 01.03.2021, the court below dismissed as not maintainable, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.202 of 2018 filed by the appellant/ 1st defendant, an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to arbitration. The impugned order will not fall under the list of appealable orders specified in Section 104 or Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code. Therefore, conclusion is irresistible that the above appeal filed against the order dated 01.03.2021 of the court below in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.202 of 2018 is not maintainable under Section 104 or under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code.17. As per Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.18. As noticed by the Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Bharat Aluminium Co. [(2012) 9 SCC 552], the term ‘judicial authority’ has been retained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act especially in view of policy of least intervention, which cannot be limited only to the courts. This is clearly in recognition of the phenomenon that the judicial control of commercial disputes is no longer in the exclusive jurisdiction of courts. In the said decision the Apex Court noticed that there are many statutory bodies, tribunals which would have adjudicatory jurisdiction in very complex commercial matters.19. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia [(2021) 2 SCC 1] laid down a four-fold test to decide the question as to whether a dispute in an arbitration agreement is not arbitrable. These tests are not watertight compartments; they dovetail and overlap, albeit when applied holistically and pragmatically will help and assist in determining and ascertaining with great degree of certainty when as per law in India, a dispute or subject-matter is non-arbitrable. Only when the answer is affirmative that the subject-matter of the dispute would be non-arbitrable.20. In BGS SGS Soma JV [(2020) 4 SCC 234], on the maintainability of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in a case in which an application under Section 34 of the Act was ordered to be transferred from a court which had no jurisdiction to a court which had jurisdiction, the Apex Court held that, the refusal to set aside an arbitral award must be under Section 34, i.e., after the grounds set out in Section 34 have been applied to the arbitral award in question, and after the court has turned down such grounds. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in the impugned judgment held that, even where a Section 34 application is ordered to be returned to the appropriate court, such order would amount to an order “refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34”. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court held that, there was no adjudication under Section 34 of the Act. All that was done by the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram was that, the said court allowed an application filed under Section 151 read with Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining that it had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the Section 34 application, and therefore, such application would have to be returned to the competent court situate at New Delhi.21. In the instant case, by the impugned order dated 01.03.2021, the court below dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2020 filed by the appellant-1st defendant, under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to refer the parties to arbitration, as not maintainable, on the ground that, since the amount sought to be recovered is in excess of Rs.85,00,000/-, in the dispute arising out of a construction contract, O.S.No.202 of 2018 is liable to be transferred to the Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in view of the provisions under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act.22. In order to find out whether an appeal against an order passed on an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is maintainable or not, the parameters of Section 37(1)(a) of the said Act alone have to be looked into. The impugned order of the court below cannot be said to be an order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on a finding that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists. Only when an application filed under Section 8(1) of the Act is dismissed by a judicial authority, refusing to refer the parties to arbitration on a finding that a dispute in the arbitration agreement is not arbitrable, the order passed by that authority will come under the purview of an appealable order under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the law laid down in Fuerst Day Lawson [(2011) 8 SCC 333], Kandla Export Corporation [(2018) 14 SCC 715], BGS SGS Soma JV [(2020) 4 SCC 234], Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC [2021 SCC OnLine SC 557] and Sadasivan K. [2020 (5) KHC 461], an order, which is not appealable under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would not be appealable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act or under Section 104 or Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.23. As per Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, all suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value pending in any civil court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court. As per Section 15(3), where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer. As per Section 15(5), i n the event that such suit or application is not transferred in the manner specified in Section 13(1) or 13(2) or 13(3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the court before which it is pending and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer shall be final and binding.24. In view of the provisions under Section 15 of the of the Commercial Courts Act, the court below, instead of dismissing I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.202 of 2018 filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to refer the parties to arbitration as not maintainable, ought to have ordered transfer of O.S.No.202 of 2018 pending before that court to the Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram, along with I.A.No.2 of 2020, as provided under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, so as to enable that court to proceed with O.S.No.202 of 2018 and also I.A.No.2 of 2020, as provided under Section 15(3) of the said Act. The impugned order of the court below, dismissing I.A.No.2 of 2020 filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as not maintainable, assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, can certainly be challenged invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Deep Industries Ltd. [(2020) 15 SCC 706] and Bhaven Construction [2021 SCC OnLine SC 8].In the result, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, subject to the above observation.
O R