Appeal against Commercial Court’s attachment order not maintainable under Commercial Courts Act, Patna High Court rules

Umesh Prasad Yadav, a transporter engaged by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (“Corporation”), raised disputes arising from termination of his transportation contract and deductions/adjustments allegedly made by the Corporation.

Pursuant to proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), a sole arbitrator was appointed, who passed an award dated 2 October 2024 directing the Corporation to pay ₹6,09,37,971.88, with interest in accordance with the Arbitration Act if payment was not made within 30 days.

The Corporation challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and filed a stay petition, which remained pending.

Meanwhile, the award-holder initiated Execution Case No. 176 of 2025 under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Despite notices and repeated opportunities, the Corporation allegedly neither deposited the award amount nor filed its reply-cum-objection.

On 21 July 2026, the Commercial Court directed attachment of the Corporation’s movable and immovable assets, including its offices at Patna and Araria.

The Corporation preferred the present appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”).

Whether an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act lies against an order of a Commercial Court directing attachment of movable and immovable properties in execution of an arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act?

Whether the proviso to Section 13(1A) restricts appeals to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act?

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act permits an appeal against judgments or orders of a Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction, but its proviso limits such appeals to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Section 37 of the Arbitration Act provides a specific and exhaustive list of appealable orders, including orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 9 and orders setting aside or refusing to set aside an award under Section 34.

Section 104 read with Order XLIII CPC similarly confines appeals against orders to those expressly specified.

In Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, (2018) 14 SCC 715, the Supreme Court held that orders not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, and orders not covered by Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, are not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Court also relied on Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of other laws.

The contrary expansive approach adopted in D&H India Ltd. v. Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 477, and followed in Delhi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3603, was treated as inconsistent with the binding principle in Kandla Export Corporation.

The impugned order was passed in execution of an arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act and directed attachment of the award-debtors’ assets.

The Court held that such an attachment order is neither an order specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC nor an order appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The fact that the order was passed by a Commercial Court did not independently create a right of appeal, because the proviso to Section 13(1A) operates as a statutory restriction on the general appellate provision.

Relying on Kandla Export Corporation, the Court rejected the appellants’ submission that Section 13(1A) should be interpreted expansively.

It further held that the insertion of Section 13(1A) by the 2018 amendment did not alter the legal effect of the proviso, which remained substantially unchanged and continued to limit appealable orders.

The appeal was therefore held not maintainable and disposed of accordingly, without prejudice to the appellants’ right to pursue any other remedy available in law.

The Court also directed the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay ₹25,000 to the learned Amicus Curiae within two weeks.