Interim orders under Section 36(3) are not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. ### Case Summary Background The appellant, a Government undertaking, challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Commercial Court granted a stay on the award's enforcement but conditioned it upon the deposit of the entire awarded amount. The appellant appealed this condition, arguing it was arbitrary and ignored the merits of their challenge. Key Legal Issue The central question was whether an appeal lies against an interim order passed under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act (concerning the stay of an award) by invoking Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Court's Analysis and Ruling The High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, reasoning that: * Exclusionary Nature of Section 37: Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is an exhaustive code that lists specific appealable orders. Since Section 36(3) is not mentioned, appeals against such orders are barred. * Restrictive Scope of Commercial Courts Act: Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act does not create new appellate rights; it merely provides the forum for appeals already authorized under Section 37. The court emphasized that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code that overrides general appellate provisions. * Policy Against Interlocutory Litigation: Permitting appeals against conditional stays would defeat the legislative intent of speedy enforcement and minimal judicial interference in arbitration. The Court concluded that while the appellant remains free to seek supervisory relief under Article 227 of the Constitution, no statutory appeal exists for this specific interlocutory order. Would you like a summary of the next segment or another judgment?

The Appellant and Respondent entered into a PPP Contract Agreement on 25.06.2020 for warehouse management

Disputes were referred to arbitration, resulting in an Award dated 03.06.2025 in favor of the Respondent

The Appellant challenged the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") and sought a stay of enforcement under Section 36(3)

On 18.04.2026, the Commercial Court granted a stay subject to the Appellant depositing 100% of the awarded amount (Rs. 6,80,35,258/-)

The Appellant filed this miscellaneous appeal against the conditional stay order, arguing it was onerous and arbitrary

1. Whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against an interim order passed by a Commercial Court under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act

The Court primarily applied Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which exhaustively lists appealable orders and expressly excludes all others

It interpreted Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specifically the proviso to Section 13(1A), which restricts appeals in arbitration matters to those specifically enumerated under Section 37 of the Act

The Court relied on the precedent of Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. v. OCI Corporation & Anr. (2018), which established that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and the Commercial Courts Act does not expand the scope of appealable orders beyond Section 37

The Court reasoned that Section 37 of the Arbitration Act uses exclusionary language ("and from no others"), meaning only orders under Sections 8, 9, and 34 are appealable

An order under Section 36(3) regulating the stay of an award is distinct from these sections and is thus non-appealable

The Appellant’s reliance on the non-obstante clause in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act was rejected, as the Clause operates restrictively to shut out unauthorized appeals rather than creating new ones

The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act explicitly tethers the right of appeal back to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act

Therefore, following the ratio in Kandla Export, since Section 37 does not mention Section 36(3), no appeal lies against such an interim order

The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Appellant to seek alternative remedies, such as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution