SRI DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) v. BENGALURU - 560 055

1. TAURUS POWERTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 26, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN.

2. M/S. TAURUS POWERTRONICS SYSTEMS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, REPRESENTED HEREIN THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN HAVING OFFICE AT 26, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

3. MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OLD, S/O MR. M.N. NARASIMHAN, RESIDING AT L-404, BRIGADE GATEWAYS, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 055. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28846-DB COMAP No. 304 of 2026 HC-KAR

4. MRS. GAYATHRI RAVINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OLD, W/O MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN, RESIDING AT L-404, BRIGADE GATEWAYS, RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 055. (BY SRI C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

M. K. SRINIVASAN PROPRIETOR OF MKS SYSTEMS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OLD, S/O M.K. SEETHARAM, RESIDING AT NO.89, EAST PARK ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055.

M.K. SRINIVASAN SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.33, 17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & 2) THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND BY SO DOING, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.06.2026 AS PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, (CCH-86; COMMERCIAL COURT) IN COM.M.A.NO.2/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) BEFORE IT AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28846-DB COMAP No. 304 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 06.06.2026 [impugned order] passed by the learned LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] under Section 37(2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] in Com.M.A.No. 2/2026.

2. We note that no second appeal is provided under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Section 37 of the A&C Act is set out below : "37. Appealable orders.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, 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 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; - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28846-DB COMAP No. 304 of 2026 HC-KAR (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An 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. "

Sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the A&C Act expressly provides that no second appeal would lie from an order passed under Section 37 of the A&C Act.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that notwithstanding the express prohibition under Sub- section (3) of Section 37 of the A&C Act, an appeal would lie under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [CC Act] as the same has an overriding effect by virtue of Section 21 of the said Act.

We are unable to accept the said submission. The proviso to Section 13 (1A) of the CC Act makes it expressly clear that an appeal would lie from the orders of a Commercial Division or - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28846-DB COMAP No. 304 of 2026 HC-KAR Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] and under Section 37 of the A&C Act.

The question as to whether an appeal would lie against any other order is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation and Another vs OCI Corporation and Another1. The Supreme Court held that : "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 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. "

This Court had also examined the said question Trinetramilan Product Protection Solutions Private Limited vs A. S. Narayanan2 wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation (supra) was followed. 1 (2018) 14 SCC 715 2 NC 2026 KHC 5050-DB - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28846-DB COMAP No. 304 of 2026 HC-KAR

In view of the above, the present appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12