Gujarat High Court
Turnrest Resources Pvt. Ltd vs Mv Louis Dreyfus Company Freight Asia ... on 27 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4268/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4268 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4268 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2024
In CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4268 of 2024
==========================================================
TURNREST RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
Versus
MV LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY FREIGHT ASIA PTE. LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANANDODAYA S MISHRA(8038) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
G H VIRK(7392) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HARSH N
PAREKH(6951) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the present appeal under Section-37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short referred to as 'The Act, 1996'] has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court under Section-9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The present is a matter of international commercial Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 00:09:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4268/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined arbitration where the place of arbitration was outside India.
2. At the outset, an objection has been raised about the maintainability of the appeal under Section-37 of the Act, 1996 by Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh N. Parekh, learned advocate for the respondent no.1, placing the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Referring to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2 of the Act, 1996, it was argued that the application of part - 1 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the extent provided in the proviso and the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section-37(1)(b) would not be available to the appellant herein, inasmuch as, the remedy of appeal is limited to the order passed under Section-8 of the Act, 1996 in view of the applicability of Section-37(1)(a) only to international commercial arbitration where the place of arbitration is outside India. It is further pointed out that the amendment sought to be brought in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 by Amendment Act 33 of 2019 has yet not been notified, whereby clause (a) was sought to be replaced by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-37 in the proviso to Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 00:09:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4268/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined sub-section (2) of Section-2, date of enforcement was to be notified.
3. There is no dispute about the fact of applicability of the Amendment Act 33 of 2019 whereby the amendments were proposed in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2, for the fact that the date of enforcement in the proposed amendment has yet not been notified. The result is that we have to read the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2 in the manner as it exists as on date. A bare reading of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 shows that in the limited applicability of part- 1 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 in a case of international commercial arbitration where the place of arbitration is outside India, the remedy of appeal under Section-37(1)(b) is not available.
4. Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the whole purpose for providing remedy under Section-9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2 would stand frustrated if a further remedy of appeal is not provided against the order passed under Section-9, Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 00:09:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4268/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined which is the statutory remedy available under Section-37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Reference is made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in 2025 SCC Online Bom. 698, to submit that the Bombay High Court has entertained the appeal under Section-37 and decided on merits after discussing the scope of Section-37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 in a challenge to the order passed under Section-9 and it was a case of international commercial arbitration where the place of arbitration was outside India.
5. Having gone through the decision of the Bombay High Court, we deem it suffice to note that the issue of availability of statutory remedy under the proviso to limited to the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2 was neither agitated nor adjudicated by the Bombay High Court in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is, thus, not possible for us to take any clue from the said judgment about the maintainability of appeal under Section-37(1)(b) in view of the language employed in the proviso to sub-section (2) of the Section-2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As the statutory remedy provided under the Arbitration Act is limited under Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 00:09:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4268/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section-2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, it would be not permissible nor possible for us to entertain this appeal. The present appeal is accordingly, dismissed on the ground of entertainability being hit by the proviso to sub- section (2) of Section-2. For any other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant about the statutory provisions, we are not supposed to comment in this appeal about the legislative, intention of bringing the proviso to subsection (2) of Section-2 in the manner as it exists as on date.
6. With the above, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, all pending Civil Applications would not survive and are hereby disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 02 00:09:55 IST 2025