No Intra-Court Appeal Against Arbitration Execution Orders Not Otherwise Appealable: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that two orders passed in execution proceedings relating to an international commercial arbitration award could not be challenged through a Letters Patent appeal as they were not appealable under the statutory provisions governing such appeals.
The Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
“The Act, 1996, is a self-contained code which governs all matters pertaining to arbitration, including the right to file appeals. It is trite law that a self-contained code is a special enactment. Such special enactment prevails over general enactments.”
The court further held that where the Arbitration Act does not provide a right of appeal, a litigant cannot invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to create one.
The ruling came on appeals filed by Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. against two orders passed in enforcement proceedings initiated by Tecnimont S.P.A., an Italian company, in connection with an arbitral award. Both appeals arose from the same proceeding, EXEP No. 1 of 2018.
The dispute arose from two agreements dated December 15, 2013, titled “Early Works of Services”, for onshore and offshore services connected with Fertilizer Project-3 at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh.
The agreements were governed by Indian law and provided for arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules, with New Delhi specified as the seat, subject to mutual agreement on another place in India.
Payment disputes led Tecnimont to commence arbitration. On October 21, 2017, the arbitral tribunal awarded Tecnimont USD 877,500 and EUR 455,000 towards principal, along with interest of USD 577,400 and EUR 299,000 up to the date of the award. It further awarded interest at 12% per annum until payment and costs of £26,332.90.
Nagarjuna Fertilizers challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. On October 5, 2018, a Single Judge stayed the award subject to deposit of 75% of the awarded amount. A Division Bench later reduced the requirement to 50%, payable in two instalments.
Nagarjuna Fertilizers failed to make the deposit. Its appeal was dismissed and, consequently, no stay continued to operate against the award.
Tecnimont thereafter filed an enforcement application under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act before the High Court. The proceeding was registered as EXEP No. 1 of 2018.
On June 27, 2025, the Single Judge held that the execution petition was maintainable. The judge relied on Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act read with Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that enforcement of a final award arising from an international commercial arbitration lay before the jurisdictional High Court.
Nagarjuna Fertilizers challenged that order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. While the appeal was pending, the Single Judge, on December 10, 2025, directed provisional attachment of the company's bank accounts. Nagarjuna Fertilizers challenged that order through another Original Side Appeal.
Tecnimont objected to the maintainability of both appeals. It argued that orders passed by the Commercial Division could be appealed only if they were appealable under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Order XLIII lists specific categories of orders that can be appealed, while Section 37 provides a limited list of appealable orders under the Arbitration Act.
The court held that the June 27, 2025 order, which only decided the maintainability of the execution petition, and the December 10, 2025 order directing provisional attachment were not appealable under either provision. The resulting Original Side Appeals were therefore not maintainable.
Nagarjuna Fertilizers argued that the two orders had the “trappings of finality” and were therefore appealable under the Letters Patent. The bench rejected the argument.
The bench also rejected Nagarjuna Fertilizers' application to convert the appeal into a writ petition. It held that a writ petition cannot be used to challenge a judicial order passed by another bench of the same High Court.
The court consequently dismissed it as not maintainable, made no order as to costs, and closed the pending miscellaneous petitions
For Petitioner (Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited): Senior Advocate Sunil B. Ganu, representing Advocate K.S. Vishwajit, along with Advocate Jai Kishan Solanki.
For Respondent (Tecnimont S.P.A.): Advocate Duvva Pavan Kumar, representing MZM Legal Hyderabad LLP.