Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Justice C.M. Poonacha, delivered a clear and categorical ruling that an appeal filed under the Commercial Courts Act was not maintainable because the impugned order—passed under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act—was not appealable under any statutory provision. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is purely statutory and cannot be exercised unless expressly provided. It held that the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act restricts appellate jurisdiction only to orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Since neither of these statutory routes permitted an appeal against an order requiring compliance with a previous High Court direction regarding deposit of arbitral fees, the Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. Relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kandla Exports Corporation v. OCI Corporation, the Bench reiterated that “nothing can be read into the statutory right of appeal unless expressly provided.” The Court further noted that Section 50 of the Arbitration Act provides for appeal only in limited foreign award scenarios, and therefore cannot assist in matters arising under Section 39(2).
Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, though the Court clarified that the dismissal does not prevent the appellant from pursuing any other remedy available in law.
Facts
The appellant had approached the Commercial Court under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking a direction that certified copies of the arbitral award be furnished without insisting upon deposit of arbitral fees. The Commercial Court rejected the request and directed compliance with a prior order of the Karnataka High Court, which had already instructed the appellant to satisfy the financial requirement before obtaining certified copies.
Aggrieved, the appellant sought to challenge this decision by invoking Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act and filed a commercial appeal before the High Court. The appellant asserted that the refusal to furnish certified award copies impeded its statutory right to challenge the award. The Respondent, an institutional arbitration centre, maintained that without the required deposit, award copies could not be issued as per institutional rules.
Issues
The principal issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether an appeal challenging an order passed under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. A related issue was whether the Court could exercise appellate jurisdiction when the order did not fall within statutory categories expressly provided under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Petitioner’s arguments
The appellant argued that the Commercial Court’s direction compelling compliance with an earlier High Court order unfairly restricted access to justice because the appellant required certified copies of the arbitral award to enable further legal proceedings. It was contended that the refusal to entertain the appeal would amount to a denial of statutory remedies and undermine the efficiency of commercial adjudication. The appellant submitted that Section 13(1A) provides a broad right of appeal against orders of Commercial Courts, and the restrictive interpretation adopted by precedent should not be applied to procedural orders not explicitly covered by Section 37. The appellant suggested that the circumstances warranted a liberal and purposive reading of the provision to protect litigants from arbitrary procedural barriers.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent contended that the appeal was fundamentally not maintainable because Section 39(2) orders do not fall within any statutory appeal categories under the Arbitration Act or the CPC. The Respondent distinguished between an aggrieved party’s desire to challenge a procedural directive and the statutory framework that strictly limits appellate intervention in arbitration-related matters. It was argued that institutional rules mandating payment of fees before issuance of certified copies are valid and binding and that the appellant’s non-compliance justified the Commercial Court’s order. The Respondent emphasized that the High Court cannot enlarge jurisdiction by reading into the statute an appellate power that Parliament had consciously omitted.
Analysis of the law
The Court evaluated the framework of the Commercial Courts Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to determine the maintainability of the appeal. Section 13(1A) broadly permits appeals from decisions of Commercial Courts; however, the proviso restricts this permission to only those orders listed under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Section 37 allows appeals only from specific orders such as interim measures, setting aside awards, or refusing to refer parties to arbitration. An order under Section 39(2)—which pertains merely to the provision of certified copies—does not fall within any such category.
The Court reaffirmed that statutory limitations on appeals are grounded in legislative intent to maintain efficiency, finality, and minimal judicial interference in arbitration. The Bench further held that the right to appeal cannot be inferred or expanded by implication, nor can general appellate powers override explicit statutory restrictions.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied heavily on Kandla Exports Corporation v. OCI Corporation, where the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is a clear statutory limitation confining appeals to categories expressly mentioned in Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court also explained that provisos carve out exceptions but cannot enlarge jurisdiction. The Karnataka High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s reiteration that appeals under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act are separately permitted regarding enforcement of foreign awards, but no such analogous provision exists for Section 39(2) orders.
Court’s reasoning
Hon’ble Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru emphasized that the appellant’s grievance, though understandable, could not override the statutory scheme. The Bench observed that the order impugned was purely procedural and did not fall within any enumerated appealable category. It reasoned that permitting such appeals would disrupt the structure of arbitration law, which is designed to minimize judicial intervention. The Court also noted that the appellant had other available remedies, including compliance with prior directions or initiating proceedings in accordance with statutory provisions governing award challenges.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as a matter of law. Reiterating that statutory appeals are strictly limited, the Court dismissed the appeal while clarifying that the appellant was free to pursue any other remedy permitted under the law. The ruling strengthens the principle that commercial appeals under Section 13(1A) cannot be used to bypass the Arbitration Act’s carefully crafted appellate framework.
Implications
This ruling has significant implications for commercial and arbitration practitioners. It underscores that procedural dissatisfaction regarding certified award copies cannot be escalated through a commercial appeal unless expressly provided by statute. The decision reinforces judicial trends favouring limited interference in arbitral administration and institutional governance. It also alerts litigants that compliance with fee requirements and institutional rules is essential before seeking judicial intervention. Additionally, the judgment clarifies the rigid boundaries of appellate jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, discouraging attempts to file appeals outside legislatively sanctioned categories.
