Chander Mohan Lall vs Dlf Home Developers Ltd. & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 3902 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
2
+                          ARB.A. 26/2015

       CHANDER MOHAN LALL                      ..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Ms.
                           Risha Mittal, Advocates along
                           with Appellant

                           versus

       DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate
                    with Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Ms. Nimita Kaul,
                    Mr. Prabhal Mehrotra and Mr. Amit
                    Aggarwal, Advocates

       CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                           ORDER

% 15.05.2015

1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rajiv Nayyar,

learned Senior counsel for the Respondents, regarding the

maintainability of the present appeal under Section 37 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 („Act‟). Mr. Sandeep Sharma,

learned counsel for the Appellant, on the other hand submits that the

order should be treated as one under Section 17 of the Act and

therefore appealable. Alternatively, it is submitted that since it arises

out of earlier directions issued by this Court, there is no option

available but to challenge the impugned order in this Court.

2. It is seen that the impugned interim order was passed by the learned

sole Arbitrator in an application filed by the Respondents seeking

striking out of certain portions of the affidavit of rebuttal evidence filed

by the Appellant. Although the provision under which the said

application was filed was not indicated in the application, the order

passed thereon can at best be termed a procedural order. Under

Section 19 of the Act it is open to the learned sole Arbitrator to

determine the rules of procedure. The impugned order has been passed

by the learned Arbitrator in exercise of the powers under Section 19 of

the Act. Under Section 37 (2) (b) an appeal is maintainable against the

interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal while "granting or refusing to

grant interim order under Section 17". There is no provision for an

appeal against a procedural order passed at an interlocutory stage by

the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be challenged by way of an appeal under

Section 37 of the Act. This is consistent with the legislative intent of

minimising interference by the Court with the arbitral proceedings at

an interlocutory stage.

3. To account for any difficulty that might be caused as a result of not

providing with an appeal at an interlocutory stage, the legislature has

provided in Section 34 some of the grounds of challenge to an award

on procedural issues. For instance, under Section 34 (2) (iii) of the

Act, a party could urge that the Award is bad in law because such party

was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of

the arbitral proceedings or was "otherwise unable to present his case".

4. The Court is of the view that as far as the impugned interim order

passed by the learned Arbitrator is concerned, it cannot be

characterised as an order which is appealable under Section 37 (2)(b)

of the Act. It is however clarified that all the grounds urged by the

Appellant in the present appeal would be available to the Appellant to

be urged in the event there is an occasion for him to challenge the

Award that might be passed by the learned Arbitrator.

5. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.

S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 15, 2015/sd