KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION & ANR. versus M/S OCI CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 07-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
v.
M/S OCI CORPORATION & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1661-1663 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 07, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015:
s.13(1) – Appeal under – Against enforcement of foreign award
– Maintainability of –  Commercial Division of High Court passed
order enforcing foreign award – Appeal against u/s. 13(1) –
Dismissed on the ground that since an appeal did not lie from a
judgment enforcing a foreign award under s. 50 of Arbitration Act,
no such appeal would be maintainable under Commercial Courts
Act – On appeal, held: s.50 is a provision contained in a self-
contained code on matters of arbitration – s.13(1) is a general
provision vis-a-vis arbitration – Applying the doctrine of harmonious
construction of both the statutes, they are best harmonised by giving
effect to the special statute i.e. Arbitration Act vis-a-vis the more
general statute i.e. Commercial Courts Act – Therefore, an appeal
not maintainable u/s. 50 of Arbitration Act would not be maintainable
u/s. 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act – An interpretation contrary to
this would be directly contrary to the object sought to be achieved
by Commercial Courts Act viz. speedy resolution of disputes –
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – s.50 – Interpretation of
Statutes – Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 50 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 is a provision contained in a self-contained code on matters
pertaining to arbitration, and which is exhaustive in nature.  It
carries the negative import mentioned in*Fuerst Day Lawson*
                                      [2018] 1 S.C.R. 915
   915
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
case that appeals which are not mentioned in the Act, are not
permissible.  This being the case, it is clear that Section 13(1) of
the Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts
Act) being a general provision vis-à-vis arbitration relating to
appeals arising out of commercial disputes, would obviously not
apply to cases covered by Section 50 of the Arbitration Act. [Para
21] [933-B-D]
2. The question still arises as to why Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act was expressly included in the proviso to Section
13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, which is equally a special
provision of appeal contained in a self-contained code, which in
any case would be outside Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts
Act.  One answer is that this was done ex abundanti cautela.
Another answer may be that as Section 37 itself was amended by
the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015, which came into force on
the same day as the Commercial Courts Act, Parliament thought,
in its wisdom, that it was necessary to emphasise that the amended
Section 37 would have precedence over the general provision
contained in Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.
Incidentally, the amendment of 2015 introduced one more
category into the category of appealable orders in the Arbitration
Act, namely, a category where an order is made under Section 8
refusing to refer parties to arbitration.  Parliament may have found
it necessary to emphasize the fact that an order referring parties
to arbitration under Section 8 is not appealable under Section
37(1)(a) and would, therefore, not be appealable under Section
13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.  Whatever may 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 case 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. [Para 22] [933-E-H; 934-A]
3. This, 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
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.  [Para 23] [934-B]
4. Given the objects of both the statutes, it 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.