M/S Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Cpwd — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2025)

M/S Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Cpwd — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the appellant to prefer an appropriate and properly constituted challenge against the impugned order and/or the principal order before the appropriate forum; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal is maintainable against the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (filed in connection with the restoration application relating to the Section 34 application dismissed for default), given the appealability provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Court's answer

Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 categorically provides that only an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is appealable under that provision.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is not maintainable: the rejection of the condonation of delay application in connection with the restoration application is not appealable under any provision of the 1996 Act, and since Section 5 of that Act bars judicial intervention except as provided therein, the impugned order is not appealable under the 1996 Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — maintainability of appeal — Section 34 application dismissed for default; restoration application with condonation of delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act rejected — FMA against such rejection held not maintainable — Section 37(1)(c) permits appeal only from an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 — rejection of condonation of delay in connection with a restoration application is not appealable under the 1996 Act — Section 5 of the 1996 Act bars judicial intervention except as provided therein — appeal dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to challenge the impugned order and/or the principal order before the appropriate forum; no order as to costs.

Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Commercial Division Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And

The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar

FMA 244 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

M/s. Deecon India Pvt. Limited

Vs. Union of India, CPWD

For the appellant	:	Mr. Priyankar Saha, Ms. Srijani Mukherjee, Mr. Satrajeet Sen, Mr. L.R. Mondal
For the UOI	:	Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Ld. DSG, Ms. Sumita Sarkar
Heard on	:	13.03.2025
Judgment on	:	13.03.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

The present appeal has been preferred against the rejection of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in connection with a restoration application. The restoration application was filed in connection with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”).

2

However, Section 37(1)(c) categorically provides that only an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is appealable under the said provision.

Since the refusal to set aside the arbitral award happened with the dismissal of the Section 34 application for default, the present rejection of the condonation of delay application in connection with restoration application is not appealable under any of the provisions within the four corners of the 1996 Act. Since Section 5 of the said Act categorically provides that there cannot be any judicial intervention except as provided under the provisions of the said Act, we are of the opinion that the appeal is not maintainable, since the impugned order is not appealable under the 1996 Act.

Accordingly, FMA 244 of 2025 along with IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 are dismissed as not maintainable.

It is made clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the appellant from preferring an appropriate and properly constituted challenge against the impugned order and/or the principal order whereby the Section 34 application was dismissed for default before the appropriate forum.

Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant to take back the certified copy of the impugned order upon furnishing a photocopy of the same for the records.

3

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made

available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

I agree.

(Uday Kumar, J.)

AD-03 TN