Page No.# 1/12 vs Pride Realty And 8 Ors on 31 March, 2026

                                                               Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010054192026




                                                          2026:GAU-AS:4598

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : Arb.A./5/2026

         LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL AND ANR
         SON OF SRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL AND SMT. SHILPI ANAND
         SINGHAL,RESIDENT OF ANAND LOK, HOUSE NO. 1A, MONALISA PATH,
         GEETANAGAR, ZOO ROAD,GUWAHATI, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,
         PIN- 781024.

         2: SMT SHILPI ANAND SINGHAL
         WIFE OF SRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL
          RESIDENT OF 1A
          MONALISA PATH
          GEETANAGAR
          P.S.- GEETANAGAR
          ZOO ROAD
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN-78102

         VERSUS

         PRIDE REALTY AND 8 ORS.
         A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
         INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
         SITUATED AT 604, PROTECH CENTRE, 6TH FLOOR, GANESHGURI, G.S.
         ROAD, GUWAHATI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-
         781006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI MANOJ KUMAR JALAN, S/O
         LATE MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN, R/O GEETA MANSION, CHRISTIAN
         BASTI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781005

         2:MANOJ KUMAR JALAN
          SON OF LATE MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN
          RESIDENT OF GEETA MANSION
          M.G. PATH
          CHRISTIAN BASTI
          G.S. ROAD
                                                     Page No.# 2/12

GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781005

3:SMT LALITA DEVI JALAN
WIFE OF SRI MANOJ KUMAR JALAN
 RESIDENT OF GEETA MANSION
 M.G. PATH
 CHRISTIAN BASTI
 G.S. ROAD
 GUWAHATI
ASSAM
 PIN- 781005

4:VIVEK ANAND SINGHAL
 SON OF SRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL
 RESIDENT OF 1A
 MONALISA PATH
 GEETANAGAR
 P.S.- GEETANAGAR
 ZOO ROAD
 GUWAHATI
ASSAM
 PIN- 781024

5:M/S PROTECH BUILDCON PVT. LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT
 1956 AND/OR 2013
 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 606
 PROTECH CENTRE
 6TH FLOOR
 GANESHGURI
 G.S. ROAD
 GUWAHATI
 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
 PIN- 781006 BEING REPSENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
 SRI MANOJ KUMAR JALAN
 S/O LATE MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN
 R/O GEETA MANSION
 CHRISTIAN BASTI
 G.S. ROAD
 GUWAHATI
ASSAM
 PIN-781005

6:M/S PROTECH REALTORS PVT LTD
                                                        Page No.# 3/12

A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND/OR 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 606
PROTECH CENTRE
6TH FLOOR
GANESHGURI
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781006 BEING REPSENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI MANOJ KUMAR JALAN
S/O LATE MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN
R/O GEETA MANSION
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781005

7:INDUSIND BANK
 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
 GANESHGURI BRANCH
 GROUND FLOOR
 PROTECH CENTRE
 GANESHGURI
 GUWAHATI
ASSAM
 PIN-781006
 HAVING ITS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR
 HOLDING NO. 4
 G.S. ROAD
 BHANGAGARH
VILL- ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
ASSAM
 PIN-781005 AND ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2401
THIMMAYYA RD. (CANTONMENT)
 PUNE
 MAHARASHTRA
 PIN-411001

8:REGIONAL HEAD
 INDUSIND BANK
 GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE
AT SECOND FLOOR
 HOLDING NO. 4
                                                                        Page No.# 4/12

           G.S. ROAD
           BHANGAGARH
           VILL- ULUBARI
           GUWAHATI
           781005
           ASSAM

           9:ASSOICIATED INDIA PVT. LTD.
           A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
           THE COMPANIES ACT
            1956 AND/OR 2013
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 702
            PROTECH CENTRE
            7TH FLOOR
            GANESHGURI
            G.S. ROAD
            GUWAHATI
            IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)
           ASSAM
            PIN-781006 BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMTI. INDUMATI
           SINGHAL
            R/O ANAND LOK
            HOUSE NO. 1A
            MONALISA PATH
            GEETANAGAR
            ZOO ROAD
            GUWAHATI
            IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)
           ASSAM
            PIN-78102

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ALAM, MS. V RAI,MR.T YADAV,MR. S P ROY,MR. N
ALAM,S A BAKHTIAR,MR K JAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D DEKA (FOR CAVEATOR), MR. M DAS (FOR
CAVEATOR)
                                                                      Page No.# 5/12

                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                      ORDER

Date : 31.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B.D. Deka, the learned counsel for the Caveator/respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment and order dated 17.02.2026, passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024, by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was allowed.

3. When this appeal came up for admission hearing on 24.03.2026, the learned counsel for the Caveator/respondents, namely, Mr. B. D. Deka, raised the question of maintainability of this appeal before this Courtin view of the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He has also brought to the notice of this Court the notification issued by Government of

Assam on 13thof February,2019, whereby all the Courts of Civil Judges, Senior Division were designated as Commercial Courts, as well as all the District Judges of Assam were designated as Appellate Court at district level under Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts (amendment) Ordinance, 2018.

4. The learned counsel for the Caveator/respondents submits that the dispute involved between the parties is in connection with a partnership Page No.# 6/12

agreement. He submits that the dispute is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and hence, the application under Section9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the present respondents before the Court of learned Civil Judge(Senior Division)No. 1, Kamrup(M), which is a commercial court designated under the aforesaid notification of the Government of Assam.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an appeal lies against an order of granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the said Act,before the court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decree of the courts passing the order. He further submits that as the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup(M), was designated as Commercial Court under Section 3(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and as the Court of District Judge has been designated as Commercial Appellate Court under Section 3A of the said Act, the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against any order passed by Commercial Court would lie before the Commercial Appellate Court. He submits that in view of provisions contained in Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, all applications or appeal arising out of arbitration in cases other than international commercial arbitration, that would ordinarily lie before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High Court) shall be filed, heard and disposed of by the Commercial Courts exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration, where such Commercial Courts have been constituted. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent has cited following rulings:-

(1) "Jaycee Housing (Pvt.) Ltd and Ors. Vs. Registrar (General) Orissa High Page No.# 7/12

Court, Cuttack" reported in "(2023) 1 SCC 549".

(2)"M/s NES Digboi Bogapani Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited "

[Commercial Appellate Division Case No. 1/2025, Judgment dated 23.04.2025].

6. On the other hand, Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel for the appellants opposed the objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal before this Court by the respondent/Caveator. He submits that the dispute involved in this appeal is in respect of a partnership firm, wherein the appellants have levelled allegation against respondent No. 2 that he has siphoned a sum of Rs.35 Crore from Protech Group entities for benefiting his own business group, namely, Ambika Group.

7. He submits that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which provides for forum for filing appeal against a judgment or order of Commercial Court below the level of District Judge, is a general provision as compared to the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a Special Act. He submits that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order of granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 would lie before the court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the impugned judgment was passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and as the money involved in the dispute is to the tune of Rs.35Crore and as the pecuniary limit of Court of learned District Judge to hear appeals is up to Rs.20 lakhs only, the High Court is the appropriate court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), where the Page No.# 8/12

pecuniary amount involved is more than Rs.20Lakhs.

9. He submits that under Section 2(e)(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the word "Court" in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration means a court of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. He also submits that, in the meanwhile, this High Court has entertained almost fifty numbers of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act 1996, which were admitted and finally decided by this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the judgment of this court in the case of "M/s NES Digboi Bogapani Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited" (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in the

said case the issue involved was regarding second appeal before the Commercial Division of the High Court. Whereas, issue involving the instant appeal is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has cited following judgments:-

(1)"Kandla Export Corporation Vs. M/S. OCI Corporation and another" , reported in "(2018) 14 SCC 715".

(2) "State of West Bengal and another Vs. Associated Contractors" reported in "(2015) 1 SCC 32".

(3) "M/s Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Bihar & anr ", reported in "(2007) 1 SCC 467".

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also Page No.# 9/12

perused the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.

12. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the dispute between the parties is in connection with a partnership firm and involves huge quantity of money more than the specified value as mentioned in Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.Hence, there remains no doubt that the dispute between the parties in the instant case is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xv) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

13. The Government of Assam, by its notification dated 13 thof February 2019, has designated all the courts of Civil Judges, Senior Division as Commercial Courts.

14. Under Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, all the applications arising out of arbitration matter under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that would ordinarily lie before any Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction shall be filed and heard and disposed by Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial Court has been constituted. Hence, the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 giving rise to Arbitration Case No. 205/2024 was filed before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), which is a designated Commercial Court in terms of notification issued by the Government of Assam.

15. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Court Act provides that "any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within the period Page No.# 10/12

of sixty days from the date of judgment or order".

16. Since, by the aforementioned notification dated 13.02.2019, all the District Judges of the State of Assam has been designated as Appellate Courts at district level under Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appeal from a Commercial Court i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kamrup(M) No. 1, would lie before the Court of District Judge, Kamrup (M), as same is the Commercial Appellate Court.

17. The ruling cited by learned counsel for the appellants in the case of "Kandla Export Corporation Vs. M/s OCI Corporation and another" (supra) is not applicable to this case as the facts in the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the said case, the Apex Court was considering the appellate forum against orders appealable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereas in the instant case, the question is regarding the appropriate forum in case of appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996when a commercial dispute is involved therein.

18. Similarly, the ruling cited by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of "M/s NES Digboi Bogapani Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited "

(supra) is also not applicable to this appeal, as in the said case, the question before the court was in connection with the jurisdiction of Commercial Appellate Division of High Court.

19. The Apex Court in the case of " Jaycee Housing (P) Ltd and Ors. Vs. Registrar (General) Orissa High Court, Cuttack"(supra) has observed as follows:-

"24. Thus, the Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to provide Page No.# 11/12

for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes which includes the arbitration proceedings. To achieve the said Objects, the legislature in its wisdom has specifically conferred the jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters as per Section 10 of the 2015 Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the 2015 Act is the Act later in time and therefore when the 2015 Act has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act. As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore

the later Act shall prevail.

25. It is also required to be noted that even as per Section 15 of the 2015 Act, all suits and applications including applications under the 1996 Act, relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall have to be transferred to the Commercial Court. Even as per Section 21 of the 2015 Act, the 2015 Act, shall have overriding effect. It provides that save as otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

26. Therefore, considering the aforestated provisions of the 2015 Act and the Objects and Reasons for which the 2015 Act has been enacted and the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts are established for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes including the arbitration disputes, Sections 3 & 10 of the 2015 Act shall prevail and all applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of the 1996 Act, other than international commercial arbitration, shall be filed in and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Courts, exercising the territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial Courts have been constituted.

27. If the submission on behalf of the appellants that all applications/appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of the 1996 Act, other than the international commercial arbitration, shall lie before the Principal Civil Court of a district, in that case, not only the Objects and Reasons of enactment of the 2015 Act and establishment of Commercial Courts shall be frustrated, even Sections 3, 10 & 15 shall become otiose and nugatory."

20. Thus, it appears from the observation made by the Apex Court in Paragraph No. 24 of the aforesaid judgment that since the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted later in point of time than the Act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is the latter Act which shall prevail.

21. Accordingly, in view of the provisions contained in Section 3(3), 3A and Page No.# 12/12

13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an appeal from order, granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, of a commercial court below the level of District Judge would lie under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act in the Commercial Appellate Court, which is in the instant case, is the Court of District Judge, Kamrup(M).

22. This appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

23. The appellants may approach the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court, if so advised.



                      Abhishek Digitally signed by
                               Abhishek Prem

                      Prem     Date: 2026.03.31
                               15:16:19 +05'30'                 JUDGE



Comparing Assistant