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
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
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,
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
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
