Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Dt: .08.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) RRR,J & HN,J I.A.No.7 of 2024 in CMA.No.489 of 2024 Heard Sri Arvind Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The appellant herein, had approached this Court, by way of the present appeal, being aggrieved by certain directions of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 04.07.2024. The respondent herein raised an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. The pleadings in the present application and the submissions of Sri Arvind Nayyar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the appellant are as follows:

RRR,J & HN,J I.A.No.7 of 2024 in CMA.No.489 of 2024

a) In view of the finding of this Court that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court, it would be appropriate to transfer this appeal to the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam, by exercising powers under Section 24 of C.P.C read with Section 151 of C.P.C;

16) In view of the above interpretation, it must be held that the term ―proceeding‖ would not include appeals. Consequently, this court RRR,J & HN,J I.A.No.7 of 2024 in CMA.No.489 of 2024 must hold that the present appeal cannot be transferred, under Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., to the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam.

17) However, this would not mean that the appellant cannot prefer a fresh appeal to the commercial court, Visakhapatnam or such Court which has jurisdiction. Such a course of action is available. It may also be noted that In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors.,23 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in relation to an application made under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was made, to a Court, against an arbitral award. Subsequently it was realized that the said Court did not have jurisdiction and the application was moved before the competent Court. This was objected by the respondent, on the ground that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the language of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, by implication, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the said language cannot be extended to exclude the provisions of Section 14 (2008) 7 SCC 169 = 2008 SCC Online SC 618 RRR,J & HN,J I.A.No.7 of 2024 in CMA.No.489 of 2024 of the Limitation Act, as the language in Section 34 does not lend itself to such exclusion. Similar considerations would apply to an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

18) In view of the above, this application is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner herein, to avail of such remedies as are available to the petitioner.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________ HARINATH.N, J RJS RRR,J & HN,J I.A.No.7 of 2024 in CMA.No.489 of 2024 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N I.A.No.7 of 2024 in CMA.No.489 of 2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: .08.2024 RJS