Karnataka High Court
Scarpe Marketing Private Limited vs Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited on 30 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40581-DB
COMAP No. 380 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SCARPE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
FLAT NO.4B, RAMA CLASSIC 9
SHILPI VALLEY, GAFOOR NAGAR
MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD-500 081
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
S.V. BAPUJI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2. SATHISH BABU SANA
S/O LATE SHRI SANA SUBBA RAO
AGED 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT:
Digitally signed
by VILLA NO.72, HILL RIDGE VILLAS
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA BESIDE INDIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
Location: High
Court of GACHIBOWLI
Karnataka
HYDERABAD-500 032
3. S.V. BAPUJI
S/O SATYANARAYANA S.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.301, SRINIVASAM
KPHB, 6TH PHASE
KUKATPALLY
HYDERABAD-500 072
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40581-DB
COMAP No. 380 of 2024
4. S. GURUJU
S/O G. PRATAP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT:
FLAT NO.504, BLOCK-1
SWATHI HEIGHTS
PRASHANT NAGAR COLONY
A S RAO NAGAR
HYDERABAD-500 062
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SERNIOR COUNSEL &
MISS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LIMITED
UNIT NO.301-302
DYNASTY BUSINESS PARK 'B' WING
3RD FLOOR, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD
ANDHERI (EAST)
MUMBAI-400 059
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRSENTATIVE
AJITHA PICHAIPILLAI
LEGAL DIRECTOR
2. EAST GODAVARI BREWERIES PRIVATE LIMITED
INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
4TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.12, PHASE III
ROAD, NO.82, JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD-500 033
REPRESENTED BY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL
RAJESH CHILLALL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASANTH V.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS COMAP / COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:40581-DB
COMAP No. 380 of 2024
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2024 IN COM AA No.184/2023
PASSED BY THE LXXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION
JUDGE (CCH-87) BENGALURU, COMMERCIAL COURT AS IT IS
ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW.
CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE APPLICATION BEARING COM
AA No.184/2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appeal is one preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and that the appeal would therefore clearly be maintainable.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contends that the appeal being from an order passed by the Commercial Court under Section -4- NC: 2024:KHC:40581-DB COMAP No. 380 of 2024 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and since no appeal is provided there from either under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 the appeal as such would not be maintainable, and this Court cannot consider the prayer made for stay of the Arbitration proceedings since there is no jurisdiction in this Court to consider the same since the appeal would not be maintainable.
4. We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act specially Section 13 which reads as follows:
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 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).] -5- NC: 2024:KHC:40581-DB COMAP No. 380 of 2024 (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.
5. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order.
6. The specific instances where appeals are maintainable from orders are also referred in the Section. An order under Section 29A is not included therein. Further, Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also provides that no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the part.
7. In the light of the specific provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we are of the opinion that the appeal would not be maintainable. All contentions are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:40581-DB COMAP No. 380 of 2024 Accordingly, the COMAP is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17