p" ^G^^e^tn?!?"^" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -y^ M.A. N0. —>u^ OF 2006 APPELLANT: Vs. RESPONDENTS: ^.^ ^^ M9' ri?-' ^,/'^ •^ ,E. Ramendra Rao, son of Late E. Nageshwar Rao, aged about years, resident of Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 1. Bajrang Lohia, aged / . - about 59 years, son of Shri R.K.Lohia, resident; of Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur. 2. Nathmal Sharma, named Sole Arbitrator, Evening Times, Nehru Chowk, ^- Bilaspur.-^.^^ ^ v»v^<J(^- 6<lTeoo7 CCM, C*s^«L<-Tt^--8»-)t<'e-<^-S'oo ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 (21 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCIUATION ACT, 1996 r HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA 8s HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. JJ Slui B.P. Shanua, leamed couasel for fhe appeUaut. Shri M.D. Sharma, leamed counsel for respoadent. No. 1. Shri R.N. Jha, leamed counsel for respondent No. 2. (Passed on 04.01.2007} Heard. 2. Leamed counsel for ftie appeUant relying on judgnient i^ndered by HonTile fhe Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. aad another Vs. Speciai Judicial Mat^strate aad otfaers reported in 199i >.C. 128 veliementtv contended tliat nomenclature under which this appeal has been filed, is not relevant bi.it fhe exercise of power by respondent No. 2 witiiout having jurisdiction is inate.rial aild accordingly prayed to coasicler his appeal, on the other haad, inauitam.abflity of fhis appeal has been challenged by learned counsel for fhe respondents. 3. The iinpugned order passed by respondent No. 2, ttie sole arbitrator is reprodiiced hereiuuader: "12.1.06 ^r q$i 3'38en i qidl C8 ^GRSI diffe'ii sra ^ S gsg^ cns g. ^.^o.?oo3 c^t gKKI ^gt 3B&3oI 051 S.o^.^ooE, ^I fesB 3igi I gtel^l' sft i afe ?i cgr gf?[ rft 51^ i 3o®ol.Jldlcl fSqi 1 5Sf ci5i?I lc& fteft F Y^ a& srei cag giaa i^gi ^n 3®cTiS, ^ftei 531: ^ _/ ^tl '31. <3. ol. ^ ^o8o,^c»3 31l3tQH t3. S<-.ft3ooi9 o5IEI03 Rcll^lCE ^ 31^81 S as ®@sRii t f^ ca5 gs^ ^zgt ^ q^ SIliSSsioT V3G dt GIRI ?^ <S n^d f&felrl gaofl oi^t ^t sd i saf 3D^$8]oI S^ZS. SE3:»I o^f ^ i ^z8 Qsgh ?r 33^ rlcj?oilci3rl g5ROI t 313 <3]ag &1.3I 5B ScRTI tl 3H: 'Sooi- ^. ^ ^IS 02 oIB Qft ^ 913 gcp^ji 31S 9?TS •31 ;3DfII S I; ^irag i" Section 37(2) of fhe Arbitratiou aad ConcHiation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'Act of1996') rcads as below: "37. Appealable orders.- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx . (2) Appeal shaU also lie to a court -from. aa order of fhe arbitral tribunal- (a) accepting fhe plea refen-ed to iu. sub-section (2) or sub- sectioii (3) ofsection 16; or (b) grantuig or refusing to grant aa iiiterun nieasure under section 17. 4. 'It is manifest fhat tlie order passed by the sole arbitrator does not faU witlrm the ambit of Section 37(2) of the Act of 1996, fherefore, so far as appeal is concemed, fhe appeal agauist the impugned order is not niaiutahiable. 5. So far as jurisdiction of fhe arbitrator is conceraed, adinittedly Nafhiaal Shanna (respondent No. 2) is a sole arbitrator, fherefore, at appropriate stage if his jurisdiction is challen£ed_ he hiaiself is einpowered to decide it. Ifthe order iinpugned passed by respondent No. 2 is nuU aiid void, appeUaat shall invoke jiuisdiction of appropriate foruni for his redressal in accordance with law. 6. In fhe result, the iastant appeal is liable to be dismissed aiid is accoidinglv disinissed..'l^- - Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge •^ -/