Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By ... vs P.K.Ramachandran on 6 June, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
ARB.A NO. . . OF 2024(FILING NO.24 OF 2024)
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2021 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT
(PRINCIPAL SUB COURT), KOLLAM IN O.P.(Arb) NO.2 OF 2021
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OP (ARB) NO.2 OF 2021:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (WATER RESOURCES)
GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KIP(RB) CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691531.
BY SMT. RASHMI K.M., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPODNENT:
1 P.K.RAMACHANDRAN,
S/O P.K.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, CONTRACTOR, KUPPAKAPPILLY
MOLATH, METHALA P.O.,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542.
2 A.P.BALAN,
CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT-1, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, WEST
HILL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673005
THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Arb.Appeal No.. . . of 2024
(F.No.24 OF 2024)
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The State of Kerala and another, who are the
petitioners in OP(Arbitration)No.2 of 2001, have filed this
Arbitration Appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 37
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with
C.M.Application No.1 of 2024 seeking an order to condone
the delay of 598 days, challenging order dated 30.09.2021
of the Commercial Court (Principal Sub Court), Kollam in
O.P.(Arbitration) No.2 of 2021 filed against the respondents
herein. The Registry has not numbered this appeal, which
was presented on 23.05.2024, taking note of the law laid
down by a Division Bench of this Court in Alexander Luke
v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd. [ILR 2024 (1) Ker. 829].
2. Today, when this matter is taken up for
consideration as an unnumbered Arbitration Appeal, the
learned Senior Government Pleader would point out the law
laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Alexander
Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd. [ILR 2024 (1) Ker.
829], which has already been considered by a Division
Arb.Appeal No.. . . of 2024
(F.No.24 OF 2024)
Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K.
Narendran, J.] was a party, in the order dated 27.03.2024
in R.P.No.329 of 2024.
3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and
also the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. In Alexander Luke [2024 KHC OnLine 107], a
decision rendered on 14.02.2024, the Division Bench of this
Court held that a plain reading of the provisions under the
Commercial Courts Act, especially Section 6 and Section
10(3), would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the
court for the purpose of consideration of a commercial
dispute, even if it arises under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, would be the Commercial Court and the
appeal would, therefore, lie only to the Commercial
Appellate Court, i.e., District Court.
5. In view of the law laid down in the decision
referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that this appeal
challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 of the Commercial
Court (Principal Sub Court), Kollam, in OP(Arbitration)No.2
Arb.Appeal No.. . . of 2024
(F.No.24 OF 2024)
of 2021 is not maintainable before this Court, since an
appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act
against an order passed by the Commercial Court has to be
filed before the Commercial Appellate Court, i.e., the District
Court.
Having considered the submissions made by the
learned Senior Government Pleader, we deem it appropriate
to direct Registry to return the memorandum of appeal,
which was filed before this Court on 23.05.2024, to the
learned Senior Government Pleader, so as to enable the
appellants to present the same before the District Court,
Kollam.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
Skk//10.06.2024
