[Cites 33, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ennore Tank Terminals Pvt Ltd vs Kamarajar Port Ltd on 30 April, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 30.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
OSA.Nos. 263 & 265 of 2019
And
C.M.P.Nos. 21910 & 21946 of 2019
Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited
Regd. Office at Neeladri Building
No.9, Cenotaph Road
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.
Represented by its authorised signatory
Umesh Shedde ... Appellant in
both Appeals
Vs.
Kamarajar Port Limited
2nd Floor (North Wing), 3rd Floor,
Jawahar Building
17, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent in
both Appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
PRAYER IN BOTH APPEALS: Appeals filed under Order XXVI Rule 1
of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common
order and Decreetal order dated 19.08.2019 passed by His Lordship
Mr.R.Subramanian in Application Nos. 2291 and 2292 of 2019 on the file of
Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.
***
For Appellant
in both OSAs : Mr. Vijay Narayan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Gowtham Kumar
For Respondent
in both OSAs : Mr. S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr. Krishna Ravindran
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both these Appeals have been filed questioning a common order
dated 19.08.2019 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Application Nos.
2291 of 2019 and 2292 of 2019 on the file of the Original Side (Commercial
division) of this Court.
2. The appellant M/s. Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent Kamarajar Port Limited had entered into a license agreement
dated 10.11.2004 relating to the commercial terms of the operation of an
integrated Marine Liquid Terminal Structure featuring a 360 meters
continuous quay and tank farm and related facilities to handle liquid
products at Kamarajar Port Trust. The right to operate the Marine Liquid
Terminal (MLT-I) had been granted by the respondent pursuant to a
tendering process. Under the license agreement, the appellant was permitted
to build, operate and transfer the MLT-I tank farm in Ennore Port.
3. The appellant sought to exercise their right for expansion as
provided under the terms of the agreement and submitted a Detailed Project
Report 2014 DPR.
4. This was however rejected by the respondent. Disputes arose
between the parties in relation to the rights of expansion under the license
agreement. The disputes were referred to arbitration. An award was passed
on 28.09.2017 holding that the appellant was entitled to an expansion of 330
meters as projected in 2014 DPR. Neither the appellant nor the respondent
filed applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 (the Act) questioning the said award. The award had thus become
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
final.
5. The respondent neglected to comply with the award, but attempted
to grant Marine Liquid Terminal – II (MLT-II) to another consortium, which
according to the appellant would prevent the expansion rights granted under
the award.
6. The appellant then filed O.A.Nos. 184 and 185 of 2018 under
Section 9 of the Act seeking a restraint against the respondent from allotting
alternate MLT-II to any third party. These applications were dismissed by a
learned Single Judge by order dated 06.06.2018. Thereafter, the appellant
filed O.S.A.Nos. 262 and 263 of 2018. The Division Bench directed status
quo. In the meanwhile, the appellant also filed an Enforcement Petition
under Section 36 of the Act in E.P.No. 124 of 2018 before the learned
Master, who allowed the Execution Petition by order dated 08.02.2019,
upholding the right of expansion of the appellant. The learned Master also
directed the respondent to approve the 2014 DPR and allot an area of 330
meters expansion of the existing MLT-I and to allot an area of 300 sq.mts
for raised area for truck drivers and 3.75 acres to install additional surcharge
area within a period of six weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The respondent filed Application Nos. 2291 and 2292 of 2019
questioning the order of the learned Master before the learned Single Judge
seeking to set aside the order of the learned Master and to grant stay of the
said order. These applications had been filed under Order 14 Rule 12 of the
Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court.
8. The appellant herein raised a preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the applications since an appeal against an order passed in
execution of an Arbitration award is not provided under the Act. The
learned Single Judge passed an order on 19.08.2019 holding that the
applications were maintainable. Challenging that order, the present Appeals
have been filed.
9. The learned Single Judge had held that once an award had been
passed, the arbitral proceedings are terminated under Section 32 of the Act.
He further held that enforcement of the award is outside the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. He placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd., Vs. Abdul Samad and another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 622 and held that a reading of paragraph No.14 of
the said Judgment would show that the Tribunal does not have the power of
execution and for the purpose of execution of a decree, the award has to be
enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree under the Code of Civil
Procedure. The learned Single Judge further held that the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., Vs. Jindal Exports
Ltd., reported in (2011) 8 SCC 333 cannot be read to have laid down a
proposition to bar appeals arising out of execution of an award. The learned
Single Judge further held that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kandla Export Corporation Vs. OCI Corporation reported in (2018) 14
SCC 715 also does not support the contention that an appeal would not lie
against an order passed in execution of an award.
10. The learned Single Judge held that the provisions under Section
36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 makes an award a deemed
decree executable under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and
once execution is levied under the Code of Civil Procedure all rights of
appeal under the code would ennure to question an order passed in an
Execution Petition. The learned Single Judge held that the bar of filing on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal under Section 37 would only be in relation to an order passed under
the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and not in
relation to orders passed in execution of an award which according to the
learned Single Judge was outside the Act and under the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
11. The learned Single Judge further held that in Execution Petitions
in the Original Side of this Court, the Master acts only as a delegate of the
Court and an Appeal against an order of the learned Master passed in
execution is only in the nature of a review and therefore the bar created
under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 would not be
attracted. Holding as above, the learned Single Judge held that the
applications/appeals against the order of the learned Master filed under
Order 14 Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules were permissible and
maintainable.
12. Questioning the said view taken by the learned Single Judge, the
respondent in the applications has filed these Original Side Appeals.
13. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel assailed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reasonings given to justify the maintainability of the applications which in
effect were appeals against the order of the learned Master. The learned
Senior Counsel first pointed out Section 5 of the Act and was very emphatic
in his submission that the legislation did not provide for frequent judicial
interventions in arbitration proceedings. He contended that though Section
32 of the Act provided for termination of arbitral proceedings, the further
proceedings under Section 34, Section 36 and 37 of the Act are all confined
within the four walls of the procedure enunciated under the Act and under
no other statute. He contended that the enforcement of an award under
Section 36 of the Act would necessarily have to conform only to the
stipulations provided under the Act and not under the Code of Civil
Procedure. An award is only deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is
executable as such under the Code of Civil Procedure but it is not an actual
decree of a Civil Court. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked only so far they
assist in enforcement of the award and not in derailing such enforcement.
Judicial interventions could only be to the extent provided under the Act
itself.
14. In this connection, strong reliance had been placed on Section 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Section 37 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel argued that when the
Master is considered to be a delegate of the Court, the procedure involved in
preferring appeals against any order of the Master can only be as envisaged
under Section 37 of the Act and not under Order 14 Rule 12 of the Original
Side Rules, under which every order of the Master could be made
appealable before a learned Single Judge. The learned Senior Counsel
placed very strong reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., referred supra reported in (2011) 8 SCC 333 to
contend that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are
exhaustive and if an order is not appealable under Section 50 of the said Act
then, it cannot be made appealable under any other law. The learned Senior
Counsel also placed reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kandla Export Corporation Ltd., reported supra reported in
(2018) 14 SCC 715, again with respect to maintainability of an appeal under
Section 50 of the Act, vis-a-vis Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act
2015.
15. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to a Full Bench
Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Lu Qin
(Hong Kong) Company Ltd., reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 2305,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wherein the question referred to the Full Bench was whether an appeal under
the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed by
a learned Single Judge in a Civil Suit in an application filed under Section 8
of the Arbitration Act would be maintainable or not.
16. The learned Senior Counsel then pointed out the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd., Vs. Abdul Samad
referred supra reported in (2018) 3 SCC 622 which had been relied on by
the learned Single Judge, and pointed out that it had been actually therein
held that an award could be enforced in accordance with the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure but the award itself is not a decree of the Civil
Court. It is a Tribunal which renders an award and since the Tribunal does
not have the power of execution of a decree, the award is enforced in the
same manner as if it was a decree under the Code.
17. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge that these observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
would indicate that an award stands outside the Arbitration Act is not correct
and emphasised that an award would still have to be enforced only under the
provisions of the Arbitration Act and not otherwise. Mr. Vijay Narayan,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore urged that this Court should hold that Appeals against an order of
the learned Master in an Execution Petition are not maintainable and that
therefore these Appeals should be allowed and the order of the learned
Single Judge should be set aside.
18. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior counsel however pointed out
Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 which provided that
appeals shall lie from orders of a Commercial Court or a Commercial
Division only against such orders that are specifically enumerated under
Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the order of the
learned Single Judge in the applications which are now impugned do not fall
under any of the orders enumerated under Order 43 of the Code of Civil
Procedure or under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. He further pointed out
Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure which also barred an appeal
from an Original or Appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single
Judge of the High Court. The learned Senior Counsel therefore argued that
these Original Side Appeals are themselves not maintainable and urged that
the Appeals should be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the materials available on records.
20. These appeals have been preferred against the common order of a
learned Single Judge on the Original Side of the High Court in effect, the
Commercial Division, in Application Nos. 2291 and 2292 of 2019 in
E.P.No. 124 of 2018.
21. The appellant herein had the benefit of an award which affirmed
the right of the appellant to expand by 330 meters the Marine Liquid
Terminal-I granted to it under an agreement with the respondent. The
circumstances surrounding grant of such license to operate have been
narrated in the initial portions of this Judgment. However, disputes arose
between the appellant and the respondent in putting into effect the claim of
the appellant for such expansion. The disputes were referred to arbitration.
Finally an award on the aforesaid terms were granted.
22. The appellant then filed E.P.No. 124 of 2018 under Section 36 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Master sitting
on the Original Side of the High Court seeking enforcement of the Award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23. The Master is a delegate of the Court in the Original Side of this
Court.
24. The applications that could be preferred before the Master had
been enumerated under Order XIV Rule 10 of the Original Side Rules.
Under Order XIV Rule 10(xix) of the Original Side Rules gives the power to
the Master to entertain an Execution Petition. The said provision is as
follows:-
“(xxix) Applications for or relating to an order for
transmission or for the execution of a decree or order for
arrest, attachment, sale or otherwise, with power to issue
notice under Order XXI, Rules 16, 22 or 37 of the Code,
or where notice is otherwise necessary or considered
advisable (except matters dealt with by the Registrar
under the powers delegated to him by the Chief Justice.”
25. Order XIV Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules provides for an
appeal by a person affected by any order or decision of the Master in respect
of all matters judicially dealt in the exercise of the powers delegated. Order
XIV Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Rule 12: Any person affected by any order or
decision of the Master (except on a question of Court-
fees) or of the Registrar, in respect of all matters
judicially dealt with in the exercise of the powers
delegated to him by the Hon'ble Chief Justice from time
to time may appeal therefrom to a Judge. Such appeal
shall be by Judge's summons filed within eight clear
days of the date of the order or decision or within such
further time as the Judge may allow and shall briefly set
out the grounds of the appeal. Except with the special
leave of the Court no fresh affidavit or document or
evidence will be allowed to be filed or adduced.
It shall not be necessary to file a copy of the order
or decision appealed against and the time for obtaining
any such copy shall not be excluded in computing the
said period of eight days.
Unless the Court shall otherwise order, the filing
of an appeal shall not operate as a stay of the order or
decision appealed against.”
26. The one distinction which must be kept in mind is that the matter
in hand is a commercial dispute and is governed by Commercial Courts Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2015 and more specifically by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Under the Commercial Courts Act, the hierarchy of the Courts are a
Commercial Court, the Commercial Division and the Appellate Commercial
Court / Appellate Commercial Division. In the High Court, the Court
adjudicating commercial disputes is called the Commercial Division. When
an Execution Petition is preferable before the Master in a cause arising out
of a commercial lis or out of an arbitration award, on adjudication of a
commercial dispute, the Master though normally under the Original Side
Rules is termed as a delegate of the Court, while adjudicating an Execution
Petition arising out of a Commercial Cause acts not as a delegate but as a
substitute of the Commercial Division. The concept of 'Master' is not
recognised in the Commercial Courts Act.
27. The Commercial Courts Act provides a bar of an appeal from an
order passed by the Commercial Division under Section 13(1-A) of the Act.
When this provision is read holistically, it would imply that in a cause
arising from a commercial dispute and if it is presented before the learned
Master then an appeal would not lie from the order of the Master as though
he was a delegate of the Commercial Division. The Execution Petition had
been presented before the Master more out of convenience, but should have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been preferred before the Commercial Division itself. An appeal is not
provided under the Commercial Courts Act and Section 5 of the Arbitration
Act restricts judicial interventions in arbitral proceedings.
28. In the instant case, the appellant herein had filed an Execution
Petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act before the learned Master,
on a cause arising out of a commercial dispute. It is also to be noted that an
Award by an Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree but not a decree of a
Court since the Arbitral Tribunal is not a Court. The award passed by an
Arbitral Tribunal can be enforced using the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure to put into effect the award. As a matter of fact every Rule under
Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been formulated only with the
object to put into effect a decree of a Court through Execution of the decree,
and not to stifle execution. When a Master passes an order in an Execution
Petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the said order is
equivalent to the order of the Commercial Division of the High Court and
there cannot be an appeal filed again before the Commercial Division. To
reiterate the Master acts as a delegate of the Court when he discharges
judicial act under the Original Side Rules and not when he discharges
judicial act under the Commercial Courts Act or on a Commercial dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This view has
been strengthened by the subsequent amendment to the procedure when
Execution Petitions on a commercial dispute are brought directly before the
Commercial Division and not before the Master.
29. On the other hand, when the Master sits on the Original Side of
the High Court and examines any other cause which is not commercial in
nature, he acts as a delegate of the Court and any order passed by him
though termed to be appealable under Order XIV Rule 12 of the Original
Side Rules is only a review of the said order by the learned Single Judge.
This is provided in view of the hierarchy of the Courts. The Master is
delegate as subordinate in rank to a learned Single Judge sitting in the
Original Side. A Civil Judge, Senior Division adorns the chair of a Master.
Since he acts as delegate of a High Court Judge, any order passed by him
could be sought to be reviewed or re-examined by a learned Single Judge to
check whether the delegate has functioned within the rules laid down by
law. This check is required to maintain judicial discipline and consistency.
30. On the other hand when the Master examines a commercial
cause, he does not examine it as a delegate of the Commercial Division of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the High Court. It is for this reason that subsequent amendment had been
brought in that Execution Petitions under Section 36 of the Act should be
presented only before the Commercial Division in the High Court and not
before the Master. Merely because at a particular point of time, the Master
was discharging such duty would not give a right to file an appeal again
before the Commercial Division since a right to an appeal against an order
passed by the Commercial Division is restricted under Section 13(1-A) of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and more particularly Section 5 of the Act
restricts judicial intervention.
31. In Kandla Export Corporation referred supra reported in (2018)
14 SCC 715, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been stated
as follows:-
“The present appeals raise an important
question as to whether an appeal, not
maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Arbitration Act”), is nonetheless
maintainable under Section 13(1) of the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts
Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Commercial Courts Act”). ”
32. In paragraph No.13, was observed is follows:-
“5. 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 XLIII 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 XLIII of the 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.”
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally held as follows:-
“25. What is important to note is that it is
Section 50 that provides for an appeal, and not the
letters patent, given the subject matter of appeal.
Also, the appeal has to be adjudicated within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
parameters of Section 50 alone. Concomitantly,
where Section 50 excludes an appeal, no such
appeal will lie.
26. In this view of the case, it is unnecessary
to advert to Shri Giri’s arguments based
on Section 21 of the Commercial Courts
Act. Section 21 would only apply if Section
13(1) were to apply in the first place, which, as
has been found, cannot be held to apply for the
reasons given hereinabove. Equally, it is
unnecessary to advert to the arguments of the
learned counsel for the Appellants based
on Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act.
27. The matter can be looked at from a
slightly different angle. Given the objects of both
the statutes, it is clear that arbitration itself is
meant to be a speedy resolution of disputes
between parties. Equally, enforcement of foreign
awards should take place as soon as possible if
India is to remain as an equal partner,
commercially speaking, in the international
community. In point of fact, the raison d’être for
the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act is
that commercial disputes involving high amounts
of money should be speedily decided. Given the
objects of both the enactments, if we were to
provide an additional appeal, when Section 50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
does away with an appeal so as to speedily enforce
foreign awards, we would be turning
the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts
Act on their heads. Admittedly, if the amount
contained in a foreign award to be enforced in
India were less than Rs. one crore, and a Single
Judge of a High Court were to enforce such
award, no appeal would lie, in keeping with the
object of speedy enforcement of foreign awards.
However, if, in the same fact circumstance, a
foreign award were to be for Rs.one crore or
more, if the Appellants are correct, enforcement of
such award would be further delayed by providing
an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial
Courts Act. Any such interpretation would lead to
absurdity, and would be directly contrary to the
object sought to be achieved by the Commercial
Courts Act, viz., speedy resolution of disputes of a
commercial nature involving a sum of Rs.1 crore
and over. For this reason also, we feel that Section
13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act must be
construed in accordance with the object sought to
be achieved by the Act. Any construction
of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which
would lead to further delay, instead of an
expeditious enforcement of a foreign award must,
therefore, be eschewed. Even on applying the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
doctrine of harmonious construction of both
statutes, it is clear that they are best harmonized
by giving effect to the special statute i.e.
the Arbitration Act, vis-à-vis the more general
statute, namely the Commercial Courts Act, being
left to operate in spheres other than arbitration.”
34. It is thus seen that the scope of appeal in enforcement of awards
have been narrowed down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
35. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is as
follows:-
“5. Extent of judicial intervention.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, in matters
governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall
intervene except where so provided in this Part.”
36. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is as follows:-
“37. Appealable orders.- (1) An appeal
shall lie from the following orders (and from no
others) to the Court authorised by law to hear
appeals from original decrees of the Court passing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the order, namely:-
a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration
under section 8;
b) granting or refusing to grant any
measure under section 9;
c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an
arbitral award under section 34.
(2) Appeal shall also lie to a Court from an
order of the arbitral tribunal-
a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or
b) granting or refusing to grant an interim
measure under section 17.
3). No second appeal shall lie from an
order passed in appeal under this section, but
nothing in this section shall affect or take away
any right to appeal to the Supreme Court. ”
37. Again the legislation had thought it requisite that judicial
intervention should be restricted in matters relating to Arbitration. Courts
should respect such limitation.
38. The opinion of the learned Single Judge that an Execution
Petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stands outside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provisions of the Act, in our opinion, is not correct and requires interference
and is set aside. The enforcement of an award can be done only within the
confines of the said Act. The arms of the Code of Civil Procedure could be
used to ensure that the award is executed. They are not meant to stifle
execution.
39. We hold that the view of the learned Single Judge runs contrary
to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance
Ltd., referred supra reported in (2018) 3 SCC 622 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had very clearly stated that an award is not a decree of the
Civil Court as the decree has never been passed by the Civil Court. It had
been passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have the power
to execute the award. It is for that limited purpose that the provisions of the
Code are resorted to only to put into effect the award and for no other
purpose.
40. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel pointed out Section
13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 100A of the Code of
Civil Procedure to hold that the present Appeals are not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
41. However when patent irregularity in an order is presented before
us, we have to exercise our jurisdiction to set right a wrong and accordingly,
we take these appeals as an opportunity to correct the position of law and
hold that appeals filed during the course of Execution of an Arbitration
Award arising out of a commercial dispute are not appealable. We cannot
shrink from that duty. It might be a little incongruous that we hold that an
appeal against the Master is not maintainable but still hold that a further
appeal emanating from the order of the learned Single Judge is maintainable
but however patent illegality is a term which runs through the course of the
Arbitration Act and we refer to the said phrase to put in proper perspective,
the scope of judicial intervention and its limitations. We would therefore
take upon ourselves the responsibility to correct the view of the learned
Single Judge and hold that Application Nos. 2291 and 2292 of 2019 were
not maintainable before the learned Single Judge.
42. After the introduction of Section 100A of CPC, 1908, a part of
the first limb and the second limb of clause 15 of the Letters Patent have
become redundant. The third limb has become redundant in view of the
Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949. All that survives now is
a part of the first limb which provides for appeals from the Judgment of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Single Judge to the High Court itself.
43. In Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 4 MLJ 721, a Division Bench opined that in
an intra Court appeal, the Division Bench examines the correctness of the
order passed by the learned Single Judge vis-a-vis the material on record. It
acts as a Court of correction.
44. In Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SPA Vs. Lehry
Instrumentation and Valves Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2019) 2 MLJ 257 :
(2019) 1 LW 597, a Division Bench acknowledged the restriction in
entertaining an appeal as stated in the proviso to Section 13(1-A) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but held that the only exception would be
cases where the order impugned is passed before the suit was transferred to
the Commercial Division. The very fact that the learned Master entertained
the Execution Petition in the instant case and that the Applications were
filed under Order XIV Rule 12 of Original Side Rules would indicate that
the earlier procedure as provided under the Original Side Rules prevailed.
45. Accordingly, these Appeals are allowed. The order of the learned
Single Judge in Application Nos. 2291 and 2292 of 2019 in E.P.No. 124 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2018 dated 19.08.2019 are set aside. We remand the proceedings in
E.P.No. 124 of 2018 for further hearing and if the said Execution Petition
had been transferred to the Commercial Division and renumbered, for
further proceedings in such renumbered Execution Petition. No order as to
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
30.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
OSA.Nos. 263 & 265 of 2019
And
C.M.P.Nos. 21910 & 21946 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
