not apply, a reading of the impugned order shows that the Arbitrator has terminated the proceedings with respect to the claims of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not proceeding with the arbitration proceeding. Such order would be akin to the dismissal of a suit, on a technical ground may be, of non-prosecution and, therefore, could have been challenged only in an application under Section 34 of the Act and can be assailed only on the limited grounds that are available to the aggrieved party under the said provision. 33. Reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar V. Sanghavi (D) Th. LRs Neeta Lalit Kumar Sanghavi v. Dharamdas V. Sanghavi, (2014) 7 SCC 255, is ill-founded. In the said case, the Supreme Court, was dealing with a situation where the Arbitrator had terminated the arbitration proceedings due to non-payment of fees. The aggrieved party had even moved an application before the Arbitral Tribunal seeking recall of the said order and thereafter, filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before the High Court, seeking appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal. The said application was dismissed holding that the remedy of the applicant was by way of filing of a Writ Petition and not an application under Section 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court, in the above judgment, held that neither Section 11 of the Act nor a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that
