The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable against an ad-interim order granting a measure under Section 9, even if the main petition for interim measures remains pending before the lower court. The Division Bench overruled the office objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, asserting that an order directing parties to maintain “status quo ante” constitutes an appealable order.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a Division Bench ruling by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, declared that an appeal is maintainable against an ad-interim order passed by a Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court set aside the registry’s objection, holding that an order directing “status quo ante” qualifies as “granting a measure” under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, and is thus appealable.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from orders passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam in CAOP Nos. 37 & 38 of 2025. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues India Private Limited and M/s. Vishwanadh Sports And Conventions Private Limited (Respondents in the appeal) had approached the Commercial Court seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
On December 19, 2025, the Special Judge passed an order directing that the “Parties shall maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of this petition till 22.12.2025.” Aggrieved by this ad-interim direction, The Visakhapatnam Port Authority preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The High Court Registry raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, querying “please state how this COMCA is maintainable,” presumably because the Section 9 petition was still pending adjudication before the Special Court and the impugned order was only ad-interim in nature.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellants, The Visakhapatnam Port Authority, contended that the appeal was maintainable under Section 37 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, against “any measure” granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, as specifically provided under sub-section 1(b).
Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the judgment of the Meghalaya High Court in National Thermal Power Corporation v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Limited (2021), argued that Section 37(1)(b) contemplates appeals only against final orders and not against ad-interim orders.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Division Bench analyzed Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court observed that Section 37(1)(b) explicitly provides that an appeal shall lie from orders “granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9.” The Bench stated:
“We are of the view that the order dated 19.12.2025 is an order granting one of the measures under Section 9 i.e., ‘interim injunction’. So on the face of it, the order dated 19.12.2025 is covered under Section 37(1)(b), ‘granting any measure under Section 9’.”
The Court drew a parallel with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s earlier decision in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. (2004), the Bench noted that an appeal against an ad-interim injunction order under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The Court applied this principle to the Arbitration Act, reasoning that since the order was appealable under the CPC provisions, it fell within the purview of appealable orders under the Arbitration Act as well.
The Bench explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Meghalaya High Court in National Thermal Power Corporation, which had held that Section 37(1)(b) applies only to final orders. The Bench observed:
“With respect we are not in the agreement in view taken by Meghalaya High Court… to the extent that Section 37(1)(b) contemplates appeals against the final orders only and not against the ad-interim orders.”
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corpn. (2018), the Court reiterated that appeals specifically enumerated under Order 43 CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are maintainable under the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the order directing status quo ante was an order granting a measure under Section 9 and was thus appealable. The Court held:
“We are of the view that the impugned order is covered under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, 1996 and also under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC… In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is maintainable.”
The Court overruled the office objection and directed the appeal to be numbered. The Bench clarified that its order would not impede the Special Judge from deciding the pending Section 9 petition.
Case Details:
- Case Title: The Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues India Private Limited (and connected matter)
- Case Numbers: Commercial Court Appeal (SR) Nos. 53095 & 53096 of 2025
- bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
