ndm 1 arbp.692.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 692 OF 2009 Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. ... PETITIONER Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. ... RESPONDENT -------------- Mr. Atul G. Damle for Petitioner. Mr. Harinder Toor with Mr. Hemant Prabhulkar i/by Jurisconsultus for Respondent. -------------- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 07 th December, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Heard finally. 2 The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) thereby challenged the Award dated 02 nd September, 2008 passed on an application under ndm 2 arbp.692.09.sxw Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. 3 The operative par of the order is as under: “The present application filed by the Respondents u/s 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed and the Claim of the Claimants stands dismissed.” 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent raised preliminary objection stating that Section 37 (2) of the Arbitration Act provides an appeal. He has also relied on AIR 2002 Bombay 289 BASF Styrenics Pvt. Ltd V/s. Offshore Industrial Construction Pvt. Ltd. The position of law, as referred above, is not in dispute. It is clear that against the order of accepting the plea referred to in Sub-Section 2 of Sub- Section 3 of Section 16, an appeal is maintainable. 5 The point so raised by the Petitioner is because of the last sentence in the order i.e. "the claim of the claimants, stands dismissed", ndm 3 arbp.692.09.sxw as while accepting Respondent's application, the arbitrator has rejected the claims of the Petitioner. This rejection of the claim in such fashion, therefore, compel the Petitioner to invoke Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 6 After going through the order, as well as, the applications and submissions so raised, it is made clear that this order is intended to dispose of the application under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. There was no question of deciding the claims and/or rejecting the claims at this stage in such fashion. 7 Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid further complications and to give opportunity to both the parties, it is made clear that this order is only allowing the Respondent's application under Section 16. There is no question of rejecting the claim of the claimants as observed above without assigning any reason. It is contrary to law. ndm 4 arbp.692.09.sxw 8 In view of this, the order is modified to the above extent and restricted to the acceptance of plea of jurisdiction as raised by the Respondent. The liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take appropriate steps / proceedings or to file appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. 9 All points are kept open for both the parties. 10 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J ]