# Reeta Chaddha & Ors v. U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 690
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-03
- **Case number:** Commercial Appeal No. 2 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reeta-chaddha-ors-v-u-p-jal-nigam-ors-53627
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Whether under proviso to Section 13(1A) of the
Act, 2015, appeal can lie only from such orders
passed by Commercial Court that are specifically
enumerated under Order XLIII C.P.C. and
Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

## Text

690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
those who always perceive criticism as a
threat to their power or position.

9. In view of above and taking into
account the observation made by the Apex
Court in Imran Pratapgadhi (supra) and
considering the age of the applicant and
taking into account that charge sheet has
already been filed and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, I am
of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Riyaz
involved
in
the
aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his
furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount, to
the
satisfaction
of
the
court
concerned,
with
the
following
conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not
directly
or
indirectly
make
any
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence.

ii.
The
applicant
shall
cooperate in the trial/investigation
sincerely
without
seeking
any
adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not
indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

iv.
The
applicant
shall
attend
in
accordance
with
the
conditions of the bond executed by
him.

v. The applicant shall not post any
material on social media which could
create disharmony among citizens of India.

11. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

12. Identity, status and residence
proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the
bonds are accepted.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 690
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Commercial Appeal No. 2 of 2025
With
Commercial Appeal No. 4 of 2025

Reeta Chaddha & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Daya Shankar, Mahendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Suresh Singh, Vimlesh Kumar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Whether under proviso to Section 13(1A) of the
Act, 2015, appeal can lie only from such orders
passed by Commercial Court that are specifically
enumerated under Order XLIII C.P.C. and
Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
Head Notes
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section
13(1A), The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
Order
XLIII,
The
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 37 -
Remedy of appeal under the provisions of
Act, 2015 is available against those orders
which are specifically and exhaustively
7 All. Reeta Chaddha & Ors. Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors.
691
enumerated under Order XLIII C.P.C. and
Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and from the
orders which do not fall within the scope
and ambit of the orders specified therein,
no appeal shall lie - Appeals dismissed.

Held- The Commercial Court has dismissed the
execution applications against which the appeal
is not maintainable either under Order XLIII
C.P.C. or Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and, as
such, the present appeals arising from the
orders passed in execution proceedings under
the Act, 2015 would not be maintainable -
Appeal dismissed with liberty to the appellants
to take recourse to such remedy, as may be
available to them in law. (Para 12, 13, 14 &
16) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Kandla Export Corporation and another Vs. OCI
Corporation and another : (2018) 14 SCC
715;Tapesh Arora Vs. Mukesh Chand : CM(M)
1806 of 2023 decided by Delhi High Court on
16.11.2023.;BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC
Limited : (2020) 4 SCC 234;Sri Satyanarayana
Muniyappa vs. Siemens Financial Services Pvt.
Ltd. : Commercial Appeal No. 247 of 2023
decided on 04.07.2023.

List of Acts
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
1908-
The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

List of Keywords
Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Remedy of appeal
is available against: Orders enumerated under
Order XLIII C.P.C. and Section 37 of the Act,
1996; No appeal shall lie; orders not within the
scope of Order XLIII C.P.C. and Section 37

Case Arising From
Orders dated 05.09.2024 passed by Commercial
Court, Prayagraj in Execution Case Nos. 33 of
2004 and 31 of 2004 arising out of arbitral
awards dated 31.07.2002

Appearances for Parties

Counsel
for
Appellant
:-
Daya
Shankar,
Mahendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Singh,
Vimlesh Kumar Rai

Judgment/Order of the High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.)

1. These appeals under Section
13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 (for short 'Act, 2015') have been filed
against
the
judgments/orders
dated
05.09.2024 passed by Commercial Court,
Prayagraj in Execution Case Nos. 33 of
2004 and 31 of 2004 arising out of arbitral
awards dated 31.07.2002 passed by Sole
Arbitrator, whereby the execution cases
filed by the appellants have been rejected.

2. The facts indicated reveal that
respondent-Jal Nigam invited tenders for
reconstruction of RCC Overhead Tank, the
contract bond was accepted and signed on
12.06.1972 by M/s Chaddha & Co. through
Sri P.D. Chaddha, who later on died on
19.09.2017. After execution of the work,
when outstanding bill was not cleared by
the respondent, a dispute arose between the
parties and proceedings were initiated for
appointment of Arbitrator. The Arbitrator
was appointed by order dated 13.11.2001
passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Allahabad.
Ex-parte
awards
dated
31.07.2002 were passed by the Arbitrator.
For
execution
of
the
awards
dated
31.07.2002, execution applications were
filed. The execution proceedings were
contested.

3. On account of death of Mr. P.D.
Chaddha, who had filed the proceedings on
behalf of the firm, application under
Section 146 C.P.C. was filed seeking the
permission to pursue the execution cases by
Mr. Piyush Chaddha, son of P.D. Chaddha,
however, when Mr. Piyush Chaddha also
died on 14.04.2021, the appellants moved
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applications seeking permission to conduct
the pending execution cases. Thereafter
respondents 4 to 6 also moved applications
seeking
permission
to
continue
the
proceedings, which were allowed.

4. The Commercial Court, by the
orders
impugned,
framed
points
for
determination
pertaining
to
the
maintainability of the proceedings at the
instance of the applicants and came to the
conclusion that succession certificate was
not necessary, however, in view of the fact
that two sets of claimants were seeking
exclusive
right
to
prosecute
the
applications, the Court came to the
conclusion that none was able to establish
such right and consequently dismissed the
applications.

5. Feeling aggrieved, present appeals
have been filed under the provisions of
Section 13(1A) of the Act, 2015.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents raised preliminary objection
about maintainability of the appeals.
Submissions were made that under proviso
to Section 13(1A) of the Act, 2015, appeal
can lie only from such orders passed by
Commercial Court that are specifically
enumerated under Order XLIII C.P.C. and
Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996') and as the
orders impugned do not fall within either of
the categories, the appeals deserve to be
dismissed as not maintainable. Reliance
was
placed
on
Kandla
Export
Corporation and another Vs. OCI
Corporation and another : (2018) 14
SCC 715. It was prayed that the appeals
may be dismissed as not maintainable.

7. Counsel for the appellants
vehemently opposed the submissions. It
was submitted that the appeals are very
much maintainable under the provisions of
Section 13(1A) of the Act, 2015 and the
objection raised in this regard has no
substance. Submissions were made that the
provisions of Section 13(1A) of the Act,
2015
provide
for
appeal
against
judgment/order of a Commercial Court to
the Commercial Appellate Division of the
High Court independent of the proviso
under the said sub-section and, therefore, as
the orders impugned have been passed by
the Commercial Court, the appeals are
maintainable. Reliance was placed on
judgments in Kandla Export Corporation
(supra) relied on by the counsel for the
respondents
and
Tapesh
Arora
Vs.
Mukesh Chand : CM(M) 1806 of 2023
decided
by
Delhi
High
Court
on
16.11.2023.

8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by counsel for the
parties and have perused the material
available on record and are of the
considered view that the objection to the
maintainability of the appeals has to be
sustained in the light of the authoritative
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kandla Export Corporation
(supra) followed in BGS SGS SOMA JV
Vs. NHPC Limited : (2020) 4 SCC 234.

9. In the case of Kandla Export
Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court
examined the statutory scheme of appeals
under the Act, 1996 as also under Section
13 of the Act, 2015 and taking into
consideration the 'Statement of Objects and
Reasons' of the Act, 2015 and the various
provisions contained in the said Act, it was
laid down as under:

"13.
Section
13(1)
of
the
Commercial Courts Act, with which we are
7 All. Reeta Chaddha & Ors. Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors.
693
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 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., 1959 Supp (2)
SCR 256 pp. 266-267 : AIR 1959 SC 713
pp. 717-18, thus:

"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
(1957) SCR 51, p.59 : AIR 1957 SC 281 p. 284,
para 8). Bhagwati, J., in Ram Narain Sons Ltd.
v. CST (1955) 2 SCR 483 p.493: AIR 1955 SC
765 p. 769, para 10 said:

"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 Maharatta Railway Co. v. Bezwada
Municipality (1944) SCC OnLine PC 7 : (194344) 71 IA 113, p.122, laid down the sphere of a
proviso as follows:

".... 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 for Canada
1946 AC 32 (PC), 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 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.

15. Thus, an order which refers
parties to arbitration under Section 8, not
being appealable under Section 37(1)(a),
would not be appealable under Section
13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.
Similarly, an appeal rejecting a plea
referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) of
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 16 of the Arbitration Act would
equally not be appealable under Section
37(2)(a) and, therefore, under Section
13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act."

10. The Court clearly laid down that
as per the then existing provisions of
Section 37 of the Act, the orders under
Section 8 and 16 of the Act, 1996 were not
appealable, the appeal could not be
filed/maintained under Section 13(1) of the
Act, 2015.

11. After substitution of Section 13 of
the Act and insertion of the sub-section
(1A) in the said provision in the year 2018,
the judgment in the case of Kandla Export
Corporation (supra) was considered in the
case of BGS SGS SOMA JV (supra) by
Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was
specifically laid down that there is no
independent right of appeal under Section
13(1) of the Act, 2015 and that appeal
could be filed in terms of proviso to
Section 13(1A) of the Act, 2015. It was laid
down as under:

"13. Given the fact that there is
no independent right of appeal under
Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, which merely provides the forum
of filing appeals, it is the parameters of
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act,1996
alone which have to be looked at in order
to determine whether the present appeals
were maintainable. Section 37(1) makes it
clear that appeals shall only lie from the
orders set out in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)
and from no others. The pigeonhole that the
High Court in the impugned judgement has
chosen to say that the appeals in the
present cases were maintainable is subclause (c). According to the High Court,
even where a Section 34 application is
ordered to be returned to the appropriate
Court, such order would amount to an
order "refusing to set aside an arbitral
award under Section 34".

14.
Interestingly,
under
the
proviso
to
Section
13(1-A)
of
the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order 43
CPC
is
also
mentioned.
Order
43
Rule(1)(a) reads as follows:

"1. Appeal from orders.- An
appeal shall lie from the following orders
under the provisions of Section 104,
namely-

(a) an order under Rule 10 of
Order 7 returning a plaint to be presented
to the proper Court except where the
procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order 7
has been followed;"

This provision is conspicuous by
its absence in Section 37 of the Arbitration
Act, 1996, which alone can be looked at for
the purpose of filing appeals against orders
setting aside, or refusing to set aside
awards under Section 34. Also, what is
missed by the impugned judgment is the
words "under Section 34". Thus, the
refusal to set aside an arbitral award must
be under Section 34, i.e., after the grounds
set out in Section 34 have been applied to
the arbitral award in question, and after
the Court has turned down such grounds.
Admittedly, on the facts of these cases,
there was no adjudication under Section 34
of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - all that was
done was that the Special Commercial
Court at Gurugram allowed an application
filed under Section 151 read with Order 7
Rule 10 CPC, determining that the Special
Commercial Court at Gurugram had no
jurisdiction to proceed further with the
Section 34 application, and therefore, such
application would have to be returned to
the competent court situate at New Delhi."

12. The above pronouncements of
Hon'ble Supreme Court leave no scope for
7 All. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Shri Ramjan Baksh & Ors.
695
further arguments inasmuch it has been
categorically laid down that the remedy of
appeal under the provisions of Act, 2015 is
available against those orders which are
specifically and exhaustively enumerated
under Order XLIII C.P.C. and Section 37 of
the Act, 1996 and from the orders which do
not fall within the scope and ambit of the
orders specified therein, no appeal shall lie.

13. So far as judgment in the case of
Tapesh Arora (supra), reliedon by counsel
for the appellants is concerned, order
impugned in the said case was a decree of
possession passed by the Commercial
Court under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. qua
which by way of an interlocutory order, it
was observed that the appeal under the Act,
2015
would
be
maintainable,
which
judgment would have no application to the
facts of the present case.

14. In the present case, by the orders
impugned, the Commercial Court has
dismissed
the
execution
applications
against
which
the
appeal
is
not
maintainable either under Order XLIII
C.P.C. or Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and,
as such, the present appeals arising from
the orders passed in execution proceedings
under the Act, 2015 would not be
maintainable.

15. Similar view has been taken by
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in
Sri
Satyanarayana
Muniyappa
vs.
Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. :
Commercial Appeal No. 247 of 2023
decided on 04.07.2023.

16. Consequently, the appeals are
dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty
to the appellants to take recourse to such
remedy, as may be available to them in law.

17. The certified copies of the
impugned orders be returned to the counsel
for the appellants on production of self
attested copies of the orders impugned.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 695
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Contempt Appeal Defective No. 2 of 2025

Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Ramjan Baksh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Gavendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

Issue for Consideration
Whether an appeal under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable, when
the impugned order decision has not been
passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish
for contempt by the High Court.

Head Notes
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -
Section 19 - No appeal lies under Section
19, if the court refuses to take action or
initiate proceedings - Appeal dismissed as
not maintainable.

Held- By the order impugned herein the
learned
Single
Judge
has
dismissed
the
contempt application, therefore, clearly the
learned Single Judge has refused to take action
or initiate contempt proceedings - Present
appeal would not lie and the same stands
dismissed as not maintainable.(Para 7, 8 & 9)
(E-15)