Case: Kandla Export Corporation &amp; Another Vs. M/s. OCI Corporation &amp; Another

3. The brief facts necessary to decide the aforesaid issue are as follows. On 28th April, 2014, an arbitration award was passed pursuant to Arbitration Rule No.125 of the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) directing the Appellants, who were the sellers, to pay the Respondents, who were the buyers, a sum of US$ 846,750 together with compound interest at the rate of 4% calculated at quarterly rests. In appeal, by an order dated 16th April, 2015, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to pay a sum of US$ 815,000 together with compound interest at the rate of 4% calculated at quarterly rests.Being aggrieved by the Appellate Award, the Appellants filed an appeal before the Queens Bench. However, the said appeal came to be rejected on 14th July, 2015, on the ground that the award passed by the Appellate Tribunal was not obviously wrong. Against the aforesaid judgment, the Appellants filed an appeal before the Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, which was rejected on 15th September, 2015. The Appellants, undeterred, filed yet another appeal before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in U.K. The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal on the ground that the award was not obviously wrong.Meanwhile, an Execution Petition, being E.P. No.167 of 2015, was filed under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act on 29th June, 2015 by the Respondents before the District Court,On 7th March, 2016, the Appellants filed their objections to the said petition. On 12th September, 2016, the Respondents preferred an application before the High Court of Gujarat, under Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, for an appropriate order to transfer the execution petition to the High Court. By an order dated 11th November, 2016, the High Court transferred the aforesaid execution petition to the Commercial Division of the High Court of Gujarat, and a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 3rd March, 2017.On 8th August, 2017, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the objections that were filed by the Appellants and allowed the execution petition filed by the Respondents. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Appellants filed an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 28th September, 2017, stating that the Commercial Courts Act did not provide any additional right of appeal which is not otherwise available to the Appellants under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Considering the fact that Section 50 of the Arbitration Act only provided for an appeal in case a petition to enforce a foreign award was rejected, the High Court held, keeping in view the legislative policy of the Arbitration Act, (which was to speedily determine matters relating to enforcement of foreign awards) that since an appeal did not lie from a judgment enforcing a foreign award under the said section, no such appeal would be maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act.

Court's reasoning:
Given the judgment of this Court in Fuerst Day Lawson (supra), which Parliament is presumed to know when it enacted the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015, and given the fact that no change was made in Section 50 of the Arbitration Act when the Commercial Courts Act was brought into force, it is clear that Section 50 is a provision contained in acode on matters pertaining to arbitration, and which is exhaustive in nature. It carries the negative import mentioned in paragraph 89 of Fuerst Day Lawson (supra) that appeals which are not mentioned therein, are not permissible. This being the case, it is clear that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, being a general provisionarbitration relating to appeals arising out of commercial disputes, would obviously not apply to cases covered by Section 50 of the Arbitrationmay be the ultimate reason for including Section 37 of the Arbitration Act in the proviso to Section 13(1), the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson (supra) would apply, and this being so, appeals filed under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act would have to follow the drill of Section 50 alone.This, in fact, follows from the language of Section 50 itself. In all arbitration cases of enforcement of foreign awards, it is Section 50 alone that provides an appeal. Having provided for an appeal, the forum of appeal is left "to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from such orders". Section 50 properly read would, therefore, mean that if an appeal lies under the said provision, then alone would Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act be attracted as laying down the forum which will hear and decide such an appeal.In fact, in Sumitomo Corporation v. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. and Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 91 , this Court adverted to Section 50 of the Arbitration Act and to Sections 10(1)(a) and 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, to hold that once an appeal is provided for in Section 50, the Court authorized by law to hear such appeals would then be found in Sections 10(1) (a) and 10F of the Companies Act. The present case is a parallel instance of Section 50 of the Arbitration Act providing for an appeal, and Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act providing the forum for such appeal. Only, in the present case, as no appeal lies under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act, no forum can be provided for.What is important to note is that it is Section 50 that provides for an appeal, and not the letters patent, given the subject matter of appeal. Also, the appeal has to be adjudicated within the parameters of Section 50 alone. Concomitantly, where Section 50 excludes an appeal, no such appeal will lie.In this view of the case, it is unnecessary to advert to Shri Giris arguments based on Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act. Section 21 would only apply if Section 13(1) were to apply in the first place, which, as has been found, cannot be held to apply for the reasons given hereinabove. Equally, it is unnecessary to advert to the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellants based on Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act.The matter can be looked at from a slightly different angle. Given the objects of both the statutes, it is clear that arbitration itself is meant to be a speedy resolution of disputes between parties. Equally, enforcement of foreign awards should take place as soon as possible if India is to remain as an equal partner, commercially speaking, in the international community. In point of fact, the raison dêtre for the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act is that commercial disputes involving high amounts of money should be speedily decided. Given the objects of both the enactments, if we were to provide an additional appeal, when Section 50 does away with an appeal so as to speedily enforce foreign awards, we would be turning the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act on their heads. Admittedly, if the amount contained in a foreign award to be enforced in India were less than Rs. one crore, and a Single Judge of a High Court were to enforce such award, no appeal would lie, in keeping with the object of speedy enforcement of foreign awards. However, if, in the same fact circumstance, a foreign award were to be for Rs. one crore or more, if the Appellants are correct, enforcement of such award would be further delayed by providing an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.such interpretation would lead to absurdity, and would be directly contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Commercial Courts Act, viz., speedy resolution of disputes of a commercial nature involving a sum of Rs. 1 crore and over. For this reason also, we feel that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act must be construed in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by the Act.construction of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which would lead to further delay, instead of an expeditious enforcement of a foreign award must, therefore, be eschewed. Even on applying the doctrine of harmonious construction of both statutes, it is clear that they are best harmonized by giving effect to the special statute i.e. the Arbitration Act,the more general statute, namely the Commercial Courts Act, being left to operate in spheres other than arbitration.