2026:MHC:13301/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 10.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

and

CMP No.1768 of 2026

1. Jumbo World Holdings Ltd.,

A company incorporated and existing in

accordance with the laws of British

Virgin Islands with its registered office

at Sea Meadow House, Blackburne

Highway, Road Town, British Virgin

Islands.

2. Dandavati Investments and Trading

Company Private Limited,

A company incorporated and existing in

accordance with the laws of India, with

its registered office at 5th Floor, The

International, 16, New Marine Lines,

Cross Road No.1, Churchgate,

Mumbai-400 020.

Appellant(s)

Vs

Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd.,

(Formerly known as Dynasty Developers

Pvt. Limited)

A company incorporated and existing in

accordance with the laws of India, with

registered Office at No.150, Embassy Point,

Infantry Road,

Bangalore 560 001.

Respondent(s)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

PRAYER:Appeal filed under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,

2015 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Impugned Order

dated 6th October 2025 in E.P.No.4 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant(s):Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri

For Respondent(s):Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel

for Mr.G.Vivekanand

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The respondents in EP No.4 of 2025 on the file of the Commercial

Division of this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2025 are the

appellants herein.

2.EP No.4 of 2025 had been filed by the respondent herein, Embassy

Property Development Pvt. Ltd., against the appellants, Jumbo World Holdings

Ltd., and Dandavati Investments and Trading Company Private Limited seeking

to put into effect an Arbitral Award dated 31.07.2015. The relief sought in the

Execution Petition was as follows:

To direct the First and Second Respondents

together with Jerom Trading and Investment

Limited to transfer 93.47% shareholding of GWL

Properties Limited (Formerly known as Gordon

Woodrroffe Limited) as mentioned in the Schedule

A hereunder, in favour of the Petitioner mentioned

in the Schedule A hereunder as agreed in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

Share Purchase Agreement dated 21.12.2005,

failing which arrest the directors or the principle

officers of the Respondents company mentioned in

the Schedule B hereunder or the Hon'ble Court

may direct the registrar general of this Hon'ble

Court to execute the transfer of 93.47%

shareholding of GWL Properties Limited

(Formerly known as Gordon Woodrroffe Limited)

as mentioned in the schedule A hereunder, in

favour of the Petitioner mentioned in the schedule

A hereunder under Order XXI Rule 32 (2) read

with Order XXI Rule 32 (5) of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 and pass such further or other

orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

necessary and thus render justice.

3.This Award of the Arbitral Tribunal was challenged by the appellants

herein in OP No.891 of 2015. By order dated 10.01.2020, the said petition was

dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed OSA No.171 of 2020 which was

dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 05.07.2024. A

further was appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was

dismissed at the admission stage on 17.03.2025. Thus, the Award had become

final.

4.The learned Single Judge had issued the following directions:

42.In the light of the above discussion, the

following directions are issued by this Court: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

a)There shall be a direction to the petitioner to

deposit a sum of Rs.204 Crores to the credit of

E.P.No.4 of 2025, within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

b)There shall be direction to the respondents to

provide all the details and documents as stated in

Paragraph No.97 of the Award, as is required by the

petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date

of receipt of copy of this order.

c)There shall be a direction to the petitioner to

conduct due diligence in order to ensure that all the

statutory mandates are complied with, which will not

adversely impact the acquisition of the shares of

GWL. This process shall be completed by the

petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of all the details and documents from the

respondents.

d)The entire process of providing the details

and documents and conducting due diligence upon

the same shall be completed and necessary steps

shall be taken by the respondents to transfer the share

holdings (share and debentures) held by them with

GWL Properties Limited, within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

e)On such transfer of shares, the respondents

will be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by

the petitioner to the account of the E.P.No.4 of 2025

along with accrued interest.

f)If the respondents failed to comply with the

conditions stipulated supra, the Directors/Principal

Officers of the respondents Company mentioned in

Schedule B annexed to the petition will be liable to be

detained in the civil prison, and

g)There shall be a direction to the respondents

to pay a cost of Rs.2.50 Lakhs to the petitioner, within

a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

43.This Execution Petition is disposed of in the

above terms. No Costs.

5.Challenging these directions, the present appeal has been filed.

6.The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of the appeal.

7.Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel for the appellants however

disputed the said objection. He placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Another Vs.Renuka Realtors https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2375, wherein, when a challenge

was made to an order rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 10 and

Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, it was held that the said orders could be deemed

to be a decree and that an appeal was maintainable. Reliance was placed on

following paragraphs:

19. A bare reading of the above paragraph

makes it manifest that the said case involved a

challenge to an order rejecting application(s) under

Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the

CPC, which order(s) are not enumerated

under Order XLIII of the CPC. Thus, there cannot be

any quarrel with the proposition that such an order

would not be amenable to an appeal under Section

13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, and rather, can be

challenged by filing a revision or a

petition/application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, as the case may be.

20. The plaintiff who is aggrieved of the order

rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11

CPC cannot be left remediless or compelled to

institute a fresh suit for availing such a challenge.

21. In wake of the discussion made

hereinabove, the impugned order does not stand to

scrutiny and is hereby quashed and set aside. The

appeal preferred by the appellant-company in the

High Court is held to be maintainable and hence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

restored to its file and original number. The High

Court shall consider and decide the same on merits,

in accordance with law.

(ii) Sri Narasu’s Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Narasu’s Saarathy

Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2020) 3 CTC 461 with specific reference to

paragraph numbers 17, 18, 21 & 24, which are as follows:

17.The words mentioned in Section 13 (1A)

has been restricted to the extent provided under the

proviso to Section 13 (1) and 13 (1A). Therefore, we

are not in a position to accept the contention of the

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in this

regard. We are of the considered view that provisons

to Section 13 (1) and 13 (1A) is subject to “Proviso”

to Section 13 (1) and 13 (1A) of Commercial Courts

Act, 2015.

18.However, proviso to Section 13(1A) deals

only with orders. Whereas, section 13 (1A) deals

with judgement or order. As far as “judgment” is

concerned, against all the “judgment” passed by the

trial judge (Commercial Court), the parties are

entitled to file appeal in terms of Section 13 (1A).

However, insofar as order is concerned, it has been

restricted to the extent stated in the proviso. As per

the said proviso, orders falls within the purview of

Order XLIII CPC alone are appealable orders.

……….

21. The next point for consideration in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

present Appeals is whether the order passed by the

learned Single Judge for transfer of the cases from

Principal District Court (Commercial Division)

Salem to the file of this Court can be treated as a

“judgment” appealable under clause 15 of Letters

Patent. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to

Section 15, which reads as folows:-

“Appeal from the Courts of Original

Jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate

jurisdiction : And, we do further ordain that an

appeal shall lie to the said High Court of judicature

at Madras from the judgement (not being a judgment

passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in

respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of

appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the

superintendence of the said high Court and not being

an order made in the exercise of revisional

jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed

or made in the exercise of the power of

superintendence under the provisions of Sec.107 of

the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of

criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High

Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant

to Sec.108 of the Government of India Act, and that

notwithstanding anything herein before provided an

appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a

judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one

Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Sec.108 of

the Government of India Act made (on or after the 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

st day of February, 1929), in the exercise of appellate

jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence

of the said high Court, where the Judge who passed

the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for

appeal, but that the right of appeal from other

judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of

such Division Court shall be to Us, Our Heirs of

Successors in Our or Their Privy Council as

hereinafter provided.”

………...

24.The Honourable Supreme Court, in a

judgment reported in [1981 (4) SCC 8] in the case of

(Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D.Kania),

provided illustration to interlocutory orders, which

may be treated as “judgment”, which is extracted

herein below:

"106. Thus, the only point which emerges

from this decision is that whenever a trial Judge

decides a controversy which affects valuable rights of

one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment

within the meaning of the Letters Patent."

"115. Thus, in other words every

interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment

but only those orders would be judgments which

decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable

right of the parties and which work serious injustice

to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by

the trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or

relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

judgments because the grievance on this score can be

corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the

final judgment."

"120. Thus, these are some of the principles

which might guide a Division Bench in deciding

whether an order passed by the trial Judge amounts

to a judgment within the meaning of the Letters

Patent. We might, however, at the risk of repetition

give illustrations of interlocutory orders which may

be treated as judgments :

The learned counsel pointed out the ratio laid down in the above order

stating that Clause 8 provides for amendment of a decree. He therefore

contended that the appeal is maintainable.

(iii) Kamarajar Port Limited Vs. EnnoreTank Terminal Private Limited

reported in 2019 (4) LW 317 : (2019) 7 Mad LJ 237 with specific reliance to

Paragraph 40. The learned counsel argued that the Award passed under Part I of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is only deemed to be a decree of a Civil

Court and not a decree of a particular Court. He pointed out the distinction

between Sections 36 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He

therefore contended that the appeal is maintainable.

8.Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

however placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

Hindustan Unilever Limited Ponds House Vs. S.Shanthi through her power

holder D.Suyaraj and another reported in (2021) 6 CTC 1 : (2021) 4 LW 777

and placed specific reliance on Paragraph Nos.82 and 99 and argued that the

order of the learned Single Judge in the Execution Petition was not a judgment

within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that therefore, the

appeal was not maintainable.

9.The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation and another Vs. OCI

Corporation and another reported in (2018) 14 SCC 715, wherein, it had been

held as follows:

15. 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 XLIII 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 XLIII

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.

16. Thus, an order which refers parties to

arbitration under Section 8, not being appealable https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

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 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 learned Senior Counsel argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court

while examining Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, had very clearly

held that orders which are not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the

Code of Civil Procedure are not appealable.

11.We have considered the arguments advanced and perused the dictum

laid by the Courts.

12.Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is as follows:

13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts

and Commercial Divisions. - (1) Any person

aggrieved by the judgment or order of a

Commercial Court below the level of a District

Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate

Division within a period of sixty days from the date

of judgment or order.

(1-A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment

or order of a Commercial Court at the level of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction

or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a

High Court may appeal to the Commercial

Appellate Division of that High Court within a

period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or

order:

Provided that an appeal shall lie from such

orders passed by a Commercial Division or a

Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated

under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section

37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26

of 1996).

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in

any other law for the time being in force or Letters

Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any

order or decree of a Commercial Division or

Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance

with the provisions of this Act.

13.Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC is as follows:

1. Appeals 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 VII returning a

plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except

where the procedure specified in rule 10-A of Order

VII has been followed]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

(c) an order under rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an

application (in a case open to appeal) for an order

to set aside the dismissal of a suit;

(d) an order under rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an

application (in a case open to appeal) for an order

to set aside a decree passed ex parte;

(f) an order under rule 21 of Order XI;

(i) an order under rule 34 of Order XXI on an

objection to the draft of a document or of an

endorsement;

(j) an order under rule 72 or rule 92 of Order XXI

setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale;

(ja) an order rejecting an application made under

sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that

an order on the original application, that is to say,

the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule

105 of that Order is appealable;

(k) an order under rule 9 of Order XXII refusing to

set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit;

(l) an order under rule 10 of Order XXII giving or

refusing to give leave; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

(n) an order under rule 2 of Order XXV rejecting an

application (in a case open to appeal) for an order

to set aside the dismissal of a suit;

(na) an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order

XXXIII rejecting an application for permission to

sue as an indigent person;

(p) orders in interpleader-suits under rule 3, rule 4

or rule 6 of Order XXXV;

(q) an order under rule 2, rule 3 or rule 6 of Order

XXXVIII;

(r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 rule 2-A, rule 4 or

rule 10 of Order XXXIX;

(s) an order under rule 1 or rule 4 of Order XL;

(t) an order of refusal under rule 19 of Order XLI to

re-admit, or under rule 21 of Order XLI to re-hear,

an appeal;

(u) an order under rule 23 [or rule 23-A] of Order

XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie

from the decree of the Appellate Court;

(w) an order under rule 4 of Order XLVII granting

an application for review. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

The present appeal had not been filed against any order mentioned above

but against an order passed in an Execution Petition.

14.Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is as follows:

5. Extent of judicial intervention.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other

law for the time being in force, in matters governed

by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene

except where so provided in this Part.

15.The ambit of Section 5 is very clear. It provides that judicial

intervention in commercial matters is extremely narrow. In the instant case, the

order appealed is against the directions given in an Execution Petition. The

Award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Act and the challenge had

failed. It was further challenged under Section 37 of the Act and that challenge

had also failed. The further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also

failed. The appellants will have to abide by the Rule of Law at some point of

time. No special leverage could be granted to them to evade the Award granted

by the Arbitral Tribunal, confirmed by the learned Single Judge, by the Division

Bench and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Award has become final. The

directions given by the learned Single Judge are not appealable in nature as they

cannot be termed as a decree of the Court. They are not orders which fall under

Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

16.We hold that the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal stands

dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also

closed.

(C.V.K.J., ) (K.B.J., )

02-04-2026

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

sli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18/18 OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

sli

Pre-delivery Judgment

in

OSA(CAD) No. 6 of 2026

02-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis