Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, dismissing pending applications and making no order on costs. The appeals arose from enforcement of arbitral awards involving the Union government and private parties and concerned whether interest stopped on deposit in court or ran until withdrawal was permitted. The Bench held that “any other law for the time being in force” in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act includes Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, so Section 13(2) prevails and limits appeals in commercial matters, including arbitration enforcement, to those allowed under the Commercial Courts Act.

The matter arose from two execution first appeals filed before the High Court of Delhi against orders passed by a Single Judge in enforcement proceedings relating to arbitral awards. In one appeal, the decree holder challenged the denial of interest on the awarded amount for the period between deposit of the amount in court and its eventual release. In the connected appeal, the judgment debtor challenged a direction requiring payment of interest for the period during which the awarded amount remained deposited pursuant to court orders.

Also Read: University Act | On Resignation Of Selected Candidate, Vacancy To Be Filled Under Communal Rotation; Waitlisted Candidate Has No Automatic Right To Appointment: Supreme Court

Both disputes originated from arbitral awards passed in commercial arbitration proceedings. The awarded sums were deposited by the respective judgment debtors in compliance with interim orders passed during challenges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Withdrawal of the deposited amounts was permitted subject to furnishing bank guarantees. Upon dismissal of the Section 34 challenges, issues arose in execution as to whether interest continued to accrue on the awarded amounts during the period they remained deposited in court.

The Single Judge disposed of the execution proceedings by either denying or allowing claims for such interest. Aggrieved parties approached the Division Bench by filing execution first appeals, invoking provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, contending that the impugned orders were appealable.

The Bench examined the maintainability of the appeals as a preliminary issue. The Court observed that both appeals challenged orders passed in execution or enforcement proceedings initiated under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Bench recorded that “Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 restricts appeals only to such orders which are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.” It further noted that “orders passed in execution proceedings relating to payment or denial of interest do not fall within Rule 1(j) or Rule 1(ja) of Order XLIII.”

Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court stated that “the ratio laid down in Kandla Export Corporation continues to govern the field even after the 2018 amendment to Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.” The Bench observed that the proviso to Section 13 had been consciously retained by Parliament and “clearly limits the appellate jurisdiction.”

On the argument that the appeals were maintainable under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, the Court recorded that “the non-obstante clause contained in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act overrides any provision contained in the Delhi High Court Act.” It further stated that “even if an appeal may otherwise lie under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, the same would stand excluded where the Commercial Courts Act does not permit such an appeal.”

The Bench also relied upon earlier Division Bench judgments of the High Court of Delhi, observing that “the right of appeal is a statutory right and cannot be inferred in the absence of an express provision.”

Also Read: Sexual Assault By Husband’s Kin Treated As Cruelty Under IPC 498A, No Separate Trial Warranted; Delhi High Court Quashes In-Laws’ Discharge, Allows Joint Trial

The Court directed: “both the appeals are not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appeals are also not maintainable under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The instant appeals are dismissed and the pending applications stand dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Advocate; Mr. Anurag Kaushik, Advocate; Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC; Mr. Taha Yasin, Advocate; Ms. Usha Jamwal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC; Ms. Shreya Jetly, Advocate; Mr. Aakash Pathak, Government Pleader; Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate; Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Kushagra Bali, Advocate; Ms. Anju Singh, Advocate; Mr. Suman Raj, Advocate

Case Title: M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Connected Matter

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11387-DB                                                                                  

Case Numbers: EFA (OS) (COMM) 25/2024 and EFA (OS) (COMM) 12/2024

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela