HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.R.P.NO.3616 OF 2010 Dt.30.8.2010 Between: The Shalimar Works (1980) Limited Kolkata. ..Petitioner And The Board of Trustees of Port of Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.R.P.NO.3616 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in A.A.No.1 of 2004, dated 22.2.2010 on the file of the Arbitral Tribunal, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the clauses contained in the agreement and supplemental agreement between the parties the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and accordingly a decision has been taken to appoint Sri Justice P.L.N.Sarma, retired Judge of this Court for adjudication of the subject matter of the dispute. In the said arbitration proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2009 for framing additional issues. The said I.A. has been dismissed on the ground that no additional issues need be framed in view of the issues already framed on 19.12.2004, which are sufficient to cover disputes between the parties. As against the said order of the arbitrator dated 22.2.2010, as communicated by the arbitrator vide letter, dated 22.2.2010, the petitioner filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the interlocutory order passed by the arbitrator the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. We have considered the said contention. In the instant case, admittedly the arbitrator is not appointed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court or nominated by this Court. The arbitrator also is not appointed by the civil court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). As per clauses of the agreement only, the arbitrator was appointed. The further question arises that if the arbitrator is appointed by the civil court or by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, whether a civil revision petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Part I of the Act deals with Chapter I to IX. As per Section 5 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in Part I. Part I of the Act deals with appointment of arbitrators. If the parties fail to appoint arbitrator, then only the Court gets power to appoint arbitrator as per Section 11 of the Act. As against the arbitral award, the remedy for setting aside the arbitral award is under Section 34 of the Act. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, for interim protection and passing of appropriate orders including injunctions are dealt with under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the civil court jurisdiction is barred in respect of arbitration proceedings except taking interim measures under Section 9 of the Act. Once the arbitral award is passed, the only remedy is available to question the same is under Section 34 of the Act. Arbitration award can be set aside only on the grounds mentioned in Section 34 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the interlocutory orders passed by the arbitration award cannot be questioned either before the civil court or before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment reported in S.B.P and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.,[1] wherein the Apex Court held that the orders passed by the arbitral proceedings during arbitration would not be challenged under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, as such the intervention of the High Court is not permissible. It is further held that once arbitration has been commenced in the arbitral tribunal, the parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at the earliest stage. Accordingly, the Apex Court held at para 46 (vi) that once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of arbitration proceedings and the parties would approach the Court only in terms of Section 37 or in terms of Section 34 of the Act. The Apex Court held at para 46 (ix) that in cases where the arbitral tribunal has been constituted by the parties without having recourse to Section 11(6) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act. In fact, as against the interlocutory order passed by the arbitral tribunal, the petitioner earlier filed C.R.P.No.3879 of 2007 before this Court which was dismissed on 19.9.2008 following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. In spite of the same, still the petitioner has chosen to file this civil revision petition. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that the civil revision petition filed against the interlocutory order of the arbitral tribunal is not maintainable. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30.8.2010 kpr [1] (2005) 8 SCC 618