1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2784 OF 2011 (Smt. Shakuntaladevi wd/o late Vishwanath Choudhary and another vs. Shri Pravin s/o Shankarrao Choudhary and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri H.D. Dangre, Advocate for the petitioners. S/Shri S.V. Manohar and M. Shareef, Advocates for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 18, 2011 This petition takes exception to the order dated 27/2/2011 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator whereby the preliminary objection taken by the petitioners herein to the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings considering the fact that partnership in question was unregistered came to be rejected. The learned sole Arbitrator has held that there is no partnership firm involved so as to cause an impediment in proceeding with the arbitral proceedings. On behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, 2 learned Counsel Shri Manohar raises a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the above petition in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the matter of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another {(2005) 8 SCC 618}. The issue as regards interdiction with the interim orders of the Arbitral Tribunal by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been dealt with in paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47 of the said judgment. The Apex Court has in terms disapproved the stand adopted by some High Courts that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and has held that such an intervention is not permissible. The Apex Court has held in paragraph 47(vi) of the said judgment 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 the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the Court 3 only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the said observations of the Apex Court would apply in the matter of an interim order and not in respect of a matter where the Arbitral Tribunal rules in respect of one of the issues finally. In my view, interdiction by the High Courts in the arbitral proceedings has been held to be impermissible by the Apex Court in the case of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another (supra). It would, therefore, be open to the petitioners to take exception to the orders passed at the appropriate time whilst assailing the award, if the same is to be assailed on any of the grounds available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj 4