High Court of KeralaDivision BenchNot maintainable before this Court; matter to b...

Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023

Case / Petition Number:ARB.A Nos.14 and 15 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ANIL K. NARENDRAN
  • HARISANKAR V. MENON
Judgment Date
2024-06-03
Court Decision / Holding
Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 not maintainable before this Court. Registry to return the memorandum of both appeals to the Deputy Solicitor General in charge, so as to enable the appellants to present before the District Court, Ernakulam. Trial court records to be returned. The parties to appear before the District Court on 18.06.2024.
Final Disposition
Not maintainable before this Court; matter to be filed before the District Court Ernakulam. Memoranda and trial court records to be returned; appearance fixed for 18.06.2024.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • 1 SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN – 600003, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
  • 2 DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER/CO-ORDINATION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHURAM, PIN - 695014
  • 3 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
  • 4 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003

Respondents

  • M.P. SarasAN, S/O.LATE M.K.PADMANABHAN, MEKKAVELIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, NADAKKAVU P.O., MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307
  • MENINO FUTO (K/001231/2023)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • T.C.KRISHNA

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.S.BABU
  • • N.SUDHA
  • • BABU SHANKAR
  • • ALVIN JEWEL S.S.
  • • VIDHYA T.U.
  • • SREELAKSHMI B.T.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These arbitration appeals arise from an order of 30 August 2022 passed by the Commercial Court (Principal Sub Judge), Ernakulam, in AOP Nos.27 and 24 of 2021. The Southern Railway and allied bodies challenged the order invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with applications for condonation of delay in representation and filing. The respondent is M.P. SarasAN, with the pleadings filed by multiple advocates representing the railways and the Union of India. On 31 May 2024, a Division Bench referred to Alexander Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd., ILR 2024 Ker. 829, and noted that the Division Bench decision in Alexander Luke had already been considered in a prior order (R.P.329 of 2024). The High Court held that a plain reading of the Commercial Courts Act provisions, especially Sections 6 and 10(3), leads to the conclusion that for a dispute that arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the forum for consideration of the dispute is the Commercial Court, and the appeal would lie only to the Commercial Appellate Court i.e., the District Court. Consequently, Arb.A Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 are not maintainable before this Court. The registry was directed to return the memoranda and the trial court records to the Deputy Solicitor General in charge and the District Court Ernakulam; parties were directed to appear on 18.06.2024.

Provisions of Law Cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 37Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 6Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 10(3)Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 13(1)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Plain reading of statute as a rule of construction
  • Doctrine that appeals under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act lie to the Commercial Appellate Court (District Court) for commercial disputes; reliance on Alexander Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd.
  • Online and ILR versions of the same decision render the same principle in force

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants filed Arb.A Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with applications for condonation of delay. They rely on the arbitration records and seek relief under the Act, contending that the challenge to the Commercial Court order is maintainable within the statutory framework and that the delays were adequately explained. They urge that the appellate route should be considered under the relevant provisions of the A&C Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that, under the Commercial Courts Act, the proper forum for appeals arising from a Commercial Court order is the Commercial Appellate Court (District Court) under Section 13(1). They cite the decision in Alexander Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd. (ILR 2024 Ker. 829) to support the proposition that the appeal lies to the District Court, and thus this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Arb.ANos.14 and 15 of 2023. They seek transfer of proceedings to the District Court and assert that the remedy lies there.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Alexander Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd.ILR 2024 (1) Ker. 829PositiveThe Division Bench decision is applied to hold that appeals under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act lie to the District Court; this governs the maintainability in the present case.
Alexander Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd.2024 KHC OnLine 107PositiveOnLine variant of the same controlling decision, cited to reinforce the same principle about appellate forum under the Commercial Courts Act.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` ARB.A NO. 14 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 IN AOP NO.27 OF 2021 OF COMMERCIAL COURT (PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE), ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ``` - **`1 SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,`** - **`2 DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER/CO-ORDINATION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`** - **`3 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`** - **`4 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003`** ``` BY ADV T.C.KRISHNA, DSGI IN-CHARGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` M.P. SARASAN, S/O.LATE M.K.PADMANABHAN, MEKKAVELIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, NADAKKAVU P.O., MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307 ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.S.BABU N.SUDHA(S-652) BABU SHANKAR(K/821/2010) ALVIN JEWEL S.S.(K/000876/2019) VIDHYA T.U.(K/000827/2023) SREELAKSHMI B.T.(K/000991/2023) ``` 2 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 ``` MENINO FUTO(K/001231/2023) ``` ``` THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, ALONG WITH Arb.A.15/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` ARB.A NO. 15 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 IN AOP NO.24 OF 2021 OF COMMERCIAL COURT (PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE), ERNAKULAM ``` ``` APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ``` - **`1 SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN – 600003, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,`** - **`2 DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER/CO-ORDINATION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`** - **`3 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`** - **`4 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003`** ``` BY ADV T.C.KRISHNA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` M.P. SARASAN, S/O.LATE M.K.PADMANABHAN, MEKKAVELIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, NADAKKAVU P.O., MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307 ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.S.BABU N.SUDHA(S-652) BABU SHANKAR(K/821/2010) ALVIN JEWEL S.S.(K/000876/2019) VIDHYA T.U.(K/000827/2023) ``` 4 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 ``` MENINO FUTO(K/001231/2023) SREELAKSHMI B.T.(K/000991/2023) ``` ``` THIS ARBITRATION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2024, ALONG WITH Arb.A.14/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. These appeals filed by Southern Railway and others arise out of the order dated 30.08.2022 of the Commercial Court (Principal Sub Judge), Ernakulam in AOP Nos.27 and 24 of 2021. These appeals are filed invoking the provisions under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with C.M.Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 for condonation of representation delay and filing delay, in the respective appeals, which were already allowed. 2. On 20.09.2023, when Arb.Appeal No.15 of 2023 came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and the learned counsel took notice for the respondent. By the order dated 20.09.2023, records in the arbitration were called for. While adjourning the matter to 20.10.2023, this Court granted an interim stay of further proceedings till then. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 3. On 31.05.2024, when these appeals came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **Alexander** **Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd. [ILR 2024 (1) Ker. 829]** which has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a 6 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 party, in the order dated 27.03.2024 in R.P.No.329 of 2024. 4. Heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of Indiain-charge and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-incharge would point out that the balance court fee has already been paid and a memo to that effect is also being filed. 6. Registry to verify the same and incorporate the said memo in the judges’ papers of this appeal. 7. In **Alexander Luke [2024 KHC OnLine 107]** , a decision rendered on 14.02.2024, the Division Bench of this Court held that a plain reading of the provisions under the Commercial Courts Act, especially Section 6 and Section 10(3), would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the court for the purpose of consideration of a commercial dispute, even if it arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be the Commercial Court and the appeal would, therefore, lie only to the Commercial Appellate Court, i.e., District Court. 8. In view of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that Arb. Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 challenging the orders dated 30.08.2022 of the Commercial Court (Principal Sub Court), Ernakulam in AOP Nos.27 and 24 of 2021, respectively, are not maintainable before this Court, since 7 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act against an order passed by the Commercial Court has to be filed before the Commercial Appellate Court, i.e., the District Court. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-charge and also the learned counsel for the respondent, we deem it appropriate to direct Registry to return the memorandum of both appeals, i.e., Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023, which were filed before this Court on 04.02.2023 and 08.02.2023 respectively, to the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-charge, so as to enable the appellants to present the same before the District Court, Ernakulam. 10. Registry shall return the memorandum of both appeals to the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-incharge, forthwith. The trial court records shall also be returned to the concerned court. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Court, Ernakulam on **18.06.2024** . Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE** AV/4/6 8 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF ARB.A 14/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Copy of Award of Arbitrator ``` ``` COPY OF AWARD OF ARBITRATOR DATED 20/1/2018 ``` 9 Arb.Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF ARB.A 15/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Copy of Award of the CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 23/1/2018 Arbitrator PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN THE MATTER OF PARKING CONTRACT AT ERNAKULAM TOWN AND LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE NO. V/C 300/VP/ERN DATED 25/06/2013 AND AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 22/7/2013 BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ```