Karnataka High Court
M/S Kishore Vidyaniketan Society (R) vs Arbitration And Conciliation Centre on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40255-DB
COMAP No. 487 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KISHORE VIDYANIKETAN SOCIETY (R)
OFFICE AT SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL
C BLOCK, OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE
NEAR KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 092
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER
MR. NAGRAJU
S/O. LATE BOMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
HAVING OFFICE AT SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL
'C' BLOCK, OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE
Digitally signed NEAR KODIGEHALLI
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA SAHAKARA NAGAR
KRISHNAN BENGALURU - 560 092
Location: High ...APPELLANT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE
OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, EAST WING,
'KHANIJA BHAVANA', RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40255-DB
COMAP No. 487 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN COM.A.A.NO.265/2025 BY LXXXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH-83) DATED 16.08.2025 AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 13
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Act, 2015] impugning the
order dated 16.08.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court
in Com.A.A.No.265/2025. The appellant had filed the said
application under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, [the A&C Act] inter alia praying that the respondent be
directed to provide certified copies of the arbitral award without
seeking deposit of arbitral fees. The said petition was disposed of
NC: 2025:KHC:40255-DB
HC-KAR
in terms of the impugned order with a direction to the appellant to
comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P. No.19679/2025.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13(1A) of
the Act, 2015. We find that the same is not maintainable.
A plain reading of proviso to Sub Section (1A) of Section 13 of the
Act, 2015 specifies that an appeal is maintainable either from the
orders of the Commercial Court, which are specifically enumerated
under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] or
under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Neither Order XLIII of the CPC
nor Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for an appeal against the
order passed under Section 39(2) of A&C Act.
3. In Kandla Exports Corporation and another vs. OCI
Corporation and another : (2018) 14 SCC 715, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, with
which we are immediately concerned in these appeals,
is in two parts. The main provision is, as has been
correctly submitted by Shri Giri, a provision which
provides for appeals from judgments, orders and
decrees of the Commercial Division of the High Court.
To this main provision, an exception is carved out by the
proviso. The primary purpose of a proviso is to qualify
NC: 2025:KHC:40255-DB
HC-KAR
the generality of the main part by providing an
exception, which has been set out with great felicity
in CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. [CIT v. Indo-
Mercantile Bank Ltd., 1959 Supp (2) SCR 256 : AIR
1959 SC 713] , thus: (SCR pp. 266-67 : AIR pp. 717-18,
paras 9-10)
"9. ... The proper function of a proviso is that it qualifies
the generality of the main enactment by providing an
exception and taking out as it were, from the main
enactment, a portion which, but for the proviso would fall
within the main enactment. Ordinarily it is foreign to the
proper function of a proviso to read it as providing
something by way of an addendum or dealing with a
subject which is foreign to the main enactment.
'8. ... it is a fundamental rule of construction that a
proviso must be considered with relation to the principal
matter to which it stands as a proviso.'
Therefore, it is to be construed harmoniously with the
main enactment. (Per Das, C.J. in Abdul Jabar
Butt v. State of J&K [Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of J&K,
1957 SCR 51 : AIR 1957 SC 281 : 1957 Cri LJ 404] ,
SCR p. 59 : AIR p. 284, para 8). Bhagwati, J., in Ram
Narain Sons Ltd. v. CST [Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. CST,
(1955) 2 SCR 483 : AIR 1955 SC 765] , said: (SCR p.
493 : AIR p. 769, para 10)
'10. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to
a particular provision of a statute only embraces the
field which is covered by the main provision. It carves
out an exception to the main provision to which it has
been enacted as a proviso and to no other.'
10. Lord Macmillan in Madras & Southern Mahratta
Railway Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality [Madras &
Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada
Municipality, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 7 : (1943-44) 71 IA
113] laid down the sphere of a proviso as follows: (IA p.
122 : SCC OnLine PC)
NC: 2025:KHC:40255-DB
HC-KAR
'... The proper function of a proviso is to except and
deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the
general language of the main enactment, and its effect
is confined to that case. Where, as in the present case,
the language of the main enactment is clear and
unambiguous, a proviso can have no repercussion on
the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to
exclude, from it by implication what clearly falls within its
express terms.'
The territory of a proviso therefore is to carve out an
exception to the main enactment and exclude
something which otherwise would have been within the
section. It has to operate in the same field and if the
language of the main enactment is clear it cannot be
used for the purpose of interpreting the main enactment
or to exclude by implication what the enactment clearly
says unless the words of the proviso are such that that
is its necessary effect. (Vide also Toronto
Corpn. v. Attorney-General of Canada [Toronto
Corpn. v. Attorney-General of Canada, 1946 AC 32
(PC)] , AC p. 37.)"
14. The proviso goes on to state that an appeal shall lie
from such orders passed by the Commercial Division of
the High Court that are specifically enumerated under
Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It will at once be
noticed that orders that are not specifically enumerated
under Order 43 CPC would, therefore, not be
appealable, and appeals that are mentioned in Section
37 of the Arbitration Act alone are appeals that can be
made to the Commercial Appellate Division of a High
Court."
4. However, the Supreme Court further held that since Section
50 of the A&C Act also provides for an appeal, the same would be
maintainable. Clearly, where there is no specific appeal provided
NC: 2025:KHC:40255-DB
HC-KAR
from an order contemplated under the A&C Act, an appeal from
such an order would not be maintainable under Section 13 of the
Act 2015.
5. In view of the above, the present appeal is not maintainable
and the same is dismissed.
6. Needless to state that this order would not preclude the
appellant from availing of any other remedy, if otherwise available,
in law.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
YKL
CT-SG
