Turner Morrison Ltd v. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. and Anr & Ors.

Turner Morrison Ltd., Defendant No.l, Turner Morrison Land Ltd., Defendant No.2 and Shri P.V.Kapur, Senior Advocate, Defendant No.3, restraining these Defendants, their servants, agents and assignees from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the possession of B-25, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. This resulted into legal actions being preferred by the Defendants in that suit. In that Suit an Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act came to be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 0/ filed. By the Impugned Order the learned Single Judge has appointed Justice A.B.Saharya (Retd.) as the Arbitrator in place of Shri P.V.Kapur who was nominated by the Respondent. Several Division Benches of this Court have returned the opinion that an Order passed pursuant to an Application under Section 8 of the Act is not appealable. In Canbank Financial Services Ltd. v. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. and Anr, 2008 (2) ARB LR 365 (Delhi), a Division Bench comprising Manmohan Sarin and Manmohan, JJ. have not only returned this view but have also specifically dealt with the question of whether dismissal of a suit pursuant to an Application under Section 8 would take away the right of preferring a Regular First Appeal. The relevant portion reads thus:- plaint could maintain for Appellant 8 Section rejected submits that 4. The learned counsel application allowing tantamounts a therefore, Appellant this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. The Appellant's counsel further submits that the impugned order being in the nature of a judgment deciding valuable rights of the Plaintiff to maintain Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. In also relies upon the Appellant judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania reported in AIR 1981 SCC 1786. is challengeable connection a civil

To our mind the embargo on appeals in Section 37 is an absolute and categorical one. Moreover, in the instant case the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is a special act dealing with the specially limits the extent of judicial arbitrations, :> ' K- 7: '••• 1> intervention inasmuch that no intervene except where so judicial authority shall the Arbitration 5 provided. Concihation Act, 1996 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- it provides Section Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 intervention.- judicial anything contained in the time being in in matter governed by this Part, intervene

5. Extent Notwithstanding any other force, no judicial except where so provided in this Part. authority law for against the right

It is also well settled in catena of cases that an appeal is a creature of the statue, appeal inheres in no one. Since in the present case Section 37 uses an expression that an appeal shall lie from the following orders and from no others, takes away the right of to our mind consciously appeal interpretation, as otiose or expression nugatory. The Apex Court in catena of cases has held that any interpretation which renders words of a statue "otiose" is to be avoided and eschewed. to the Division Bench hes Consequently, only from the two orders mentioned in Section 37 (1) and reliance of the Appellant on Section 96 of CPC is misconceived. " orders. to our mind, would render "and from no others" appeal Any In Rites Limited v. JMC Projects (India) Ltd., 2009 (2) Arb. LR 64 (Delhi), the Division Bench comprising Mukul Mudgal and Vipin Sanghi, JJ. have articulated the very same conclusion. So far as this Bench is concerned we have separately held to the same. In Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Company v. Glencore Grain Rotterdam & Ors., 2009 (113) DRJ 509 (DB), one of us (Vikramajit Sen, J.) had expressed this view and in Jindal Exports Ltd. v. Fuerst Day Lawson (LPA 116/2010 decided on 2V' April, 2010) one of us (Mukta Gupta, J.) had arrived at the very same conclusion. In view of the uniform understanding of the law of different Division Benches of this Court we hold that the present Appeal is not maintainable. Dismissed. A VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. MUKTA GUPTA, J. September 16, 2010