The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceeding. in cEP No 22 of 2023 on the file of principal speciat court in the carder oi District Judge for Trial and Disposal Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad pending disposal of the CRP' counsel for the Petitioner: sRl VIJAY BHASKAR REDDY, Learned counsel representing SRI V.SEETHARAMA AVADHANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V. ANEESH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CTVIL REVISION PETITIoN NO.2205 0F 2025 Mr. K. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. V, Seetharama Avadhani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V. Aneesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent ORDER: (Per I{or'ble,Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision petition (CRp) arises out of an order dated 2!;.11 .2024 of the learned Commercial Court at Hl.derabad in a Commercial Execution Appiication (CtrA) filed by the petitioner. The said CEA was liied in a Commercial Execution Petition C.tr.P.No.22 of 2023- file<7 by the respondent. The petitioner herein is the Award debtor. The respondent is the Award-holder in respect of an Afuard dated

08.12.2022. The respondent herein claims to be the supplier of goods to the petitioner/buyer.

2. Learned ,:ounsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent have made their submissions yesterday and today. We have considered the case laws cited in support of their submissions. 2

3. The undisputed facts are as follows:

4. The Award dated 08.12.2022 was passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSMED Act, 2006). The Award was made in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner challenged the Award by way of a Writ Petition (C) No.1481 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 12.06.2023. The petitioner's Review Application REVP.No.1O6 of 2023 against the order dated 12.06.2023 was also dismissed on 14.Q2.2024. The petitioner carried this order to the Supreme Court by way of a SLP (Speciel Leave Petition) (Civil) No.21259 of 2024. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on O9.O7.2O24 holding that the petitioner had an a-lternative remedy under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 read '.r,ith section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting asiS of the Arbitral Award under section 34 of The -' Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Commercia_l Court, Raipur, Chattisgarh, which was dismissed on

12.05.2025. The petitioner l-rled an Appeal Arb.No.31 of 2O2S under section 37 of the said Act before the High Court of Chhattisgarh which is pending as on date.

7. The petrtioner thereaJter frled an CEA No.6O of 2024 in Commercial Court, Hyderabad, under section 47 read with section 15 1 of The Code of Civil procedure, 190g, for challenging the Avvard, dated 08. 12.2022. The Commercial Court, Hyderabad, dismissed this application by the impugned order dated 25.11.2024. The impugned order dated 25.11-2024 forms the subject matter of the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. We first address the question of the petitioner seeking recolrrse to serction 47 of Th,e Code of Civil procedure, 1908 for challenging the Arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the MSMED Act, 2006.

9. Section 18(4) of the 2006 Act contemplates the transition of the Mediation to Arbitration a-fter failure or 4 termination of the former. From the stage of section 18(a) of the 2006 Act, the parties submit to the procedures under The Arbitration and Concr'liation Act, 1996, subject to the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under section 18(5) of the Act.

10. Section 19 of the 2006 Act provides for recourse against the Award passed by the Facilitation Council to an aggrieved party subject to compliance of section 19 with regard to pre-deposit of seventy-fltve per cent of the awarded amount if the petitioner/appellant is the buyer.

11. The provisions of the section 18( ) of the 2006 Act read with the provisions of the 1996 Act make it clear that the only remedy available to an aggrieved party (Award-de'btor) is to seek recourse under section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside of the Award. There is no other statutory remedy available to the aggrieved party. The petitioner/Award-debtor before us has in fact subjected itself to the remedies available under the 1996 Act by filing a section 34 petition and thereafter an Appeal under section 37 of the 1996 Act which is pending in the High Court of Chhattisgarh' t i I I 5

12. Hence, ttrere is no statutory basis for the petitioner to file an application under section 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, i908, in a further challenge to the Award. Section 36 (1) of the 19t96 Act relates to enforcement of an Award and makes it clear tl-iat the Act makes a distinction between the Award itself and the mechanism for enforcement of the Award. The provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have a limited application which is reflected in section 36(1) of the Act which c,niv stipulates that the Award shall be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the C:ourt. It is clear from the albresaid provisions that the Award cannot be equated to a 'Decree' as defined under section 2(21 of The Code of Civii Procedure, 1908. t

13. In essence, the 1996 Act is a complete Code in itself as it provides lor a gamut of protections to an Award-debtor, even after rnaking of the Award. We therefore hnd the multiple statutor)' routes taken by the petitioner to challenge the Ar,,,ard clated C8.12.2022 not only to be misconceived but also contrarr' to law. The petitioner has gone back and forth between the 1996 Act and The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 6 at different stages of the proceedings emanating from the Award. 14 . We therefore do not lind any error in the impugned order dated 25.11.2024.

15. We end our order on the issue of maintainability

16. Section 8 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, contains a bar on the Court from entertaining a civil revision application or petition against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court. It is well settled that the word 'civil revision'would be a revision under section- 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and nor the power of superintendents available to a High Court under Article\ 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is equally well settled that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must operate within self-imposed limits. Orders passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court can only be corrected in cases of grave or gross injustice, patent illegality or where the principles of natural justice have been violated resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court should not interfere with any and every order 7 passed by a subordinate Court unless the order fatls within the accepted criteria 17 . Having lou nd that the impugned order passed by the Commercial C)ourt is free of error, we find no reason to hold that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable. We are also of the considered vieu, that the petitioner has barked up the wrong statutory tree.

18. C.R.P.No.2205 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if anv, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as t() costs. SD/. SRI NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUW REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri V.Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V.Aneesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 ORDER -a: ,4. .1,. 'i' .i ': 0 3 c[; 2025 CRP.No.2205 ot 2025 '-i....11' -, t. ) :/ DISMISSING THE CIV!L REVISION PETITION 6 a q v( \