Appeals in Execution of Arbitral Awards Not Maintainable Under Commercial Courts Act or Delhi High Court Act: Delhi High Court

“No appeal lies unless expressly provided—Statutory right to appeal cannot be presumed merely because a party is aggrieved,”  In a reportable judgment that settles a significant point of procedural law for arbitration and commercial matters, the Delhi High Court, in a Division Bench judgment authored by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed two appeals arising out of execution/enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards, holding that such appeals were not maintainable under either Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 or Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

The Bench emphatically held: “These appeals are not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, nor under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The statutory right to appeal must be traceable to the statute and cannot be inferred from general grievance.”

The ruling came in EFA (OS) (COMM) No. 25 of 2024 and EFA (OS) (COMM) No. 12 of 2024, where both appellants challenged orders passed by Single Judges in execution of arbitral awards—one denying interest for the period between deposit of award amount and its withdrawal, and the other granting it. Though the factual outcomes differed, both cases raised the same legal question: whether such execution orders are appealable.

Can Execution Orders Be Appealed If Not Listed in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 Arbitration Act?

The legal controversy centered around the interpretation of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which provides for appeals from certain orders of Commercial Courts or Commercial Divisions. The Court emphasized that even after its 2018 amendment, Section 13(1A) retains a crucial proviso:

“An appeal shall lie only from such orders as are specifically enumerated in Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”

The Court categorically held that neither of the impugned orders in the present appeals were referable to Order XLIII Rule 1(j) or (ja), the only provisions under CPC which permit appeal in execution matters.

Accordingly, it declared: “These appeals do not stem from orders listed in Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC, nor are they appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, they are barred under the Commercial Courts Act.”

Section 10 Delhi High Court Act Overridden by Section 13(2) and Section 21 of Commercial Courts Act

The appellants alternatively claimed that the appeals were maintainable under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, which generally permits intra-court appeals from decisions of Single Judges exercising original jurisdiction. However, the Court unequivocally ruled that Sections 13(2) and 21 of the Commercial Courts Act have an overriding effect.

The Court clarified: “Even if an appeal may lie under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, it is barred by Section 13(2) and Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which operate with a non-obstante clause. The legislature intended to restrict appeals to only those specifically permitted.”In Kandla Export, the Supreme Court had conclusively held: “Appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act are only maintainable if the impugned orders fall within the scope of Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. No wider right of appeal exists.”

Finality in Execution Orders Is Legislative Intent: No Remedy Beyond the Statute

In its detailed reasoning, the High Court emphasized that the legislative objective behind both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act is the expeditious resolution of disputes and that execution of awards should not be unduly prolonged through appellate litigation.

Rejecting the notion that absence of an appellate remedy makes a party remediless, the Court held: “The right of appeal is neither natural nor inherent. It must be conferred by statute. If the statute does not grant an appeal, no such right can be inferred simply because the party is aggrieved by the order.”

The Court further added that permitting such appeals would frustrate the finality intended under arbitration and commercial dispute resolution regimes.

Contrary Judgments Doubted—D&H India Ltd. View Declined to Be Followed

While the appellants relied on a previous Delhi High Court decision in D&H India Ltd. v. Superon Schweisstechnik, the present Bench declined to follow it, noting that: “Even the judgment in Delhi Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Himgiri Realtors expressed doubt about D&H India’s correctness but did not refer it to a larger bench. This weakens its precedential weight.”

Instead, the Court preferred the consistent line of reasoning in Kandla Export, HPL (India), and judgments of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, upholding restrictive construction of appeal provisions under the Commercial Courts Act.

No Appeal Lies Unless Statute Says So—Both Appeals Dismissed

Ultimately, the Court dismissed both appeals, reiterating that mere dissatisfaction with an order does not entitle a party to appellate review unless the statutory scheme expressly provides for it.

“The instant appeals are not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act or under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act. They are dismissed with no order as to costs.”

With this ruling, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a strict statutory interpretation of appeal rights in commercial and arbitral execution proceedings—a significant precedent that will guide all future disputes involving arbitral award enforcement before the Commercial Division.

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025