question of finality of the decision. He has also relied upon certain decisions to contend that the right to lead evidence is a valuable right and is inherently related to due process and fairness in proceedings. There may not be much quarrel on this proposition n law, however, the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the order impugned in the present petition is nothing but a procedural order. The Arbitral Tribunal while passing such procedural order may determine certain valuable rights of the parties. However, it does not mean that such determination renders an order to be an award within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. The determination of a valuable right in any legal proceedings would not necessarily result in an immediate actionable right. In order to ascertain whether an order is an interim award or partial award, the two most important factors that would weigh upon the Court are the concept of “finality” and “issue”. If the nature of the order is “final” in a sense that it conclusively decides an issue in the arbitration proceedings, the order would qualify to be an interim award. This is not the situation in the present case. The impugned order only rejects OPaL‟s application for placing additional documents on record. It does not decide an issue or the subject matter of adjudication between the parties. The arbitral tribunal has only decided the question as to whether the Petitioner would be permitted to file additional documents at a later stage. The order impugned though conclusively determines the application, however, it cannot be said that the subject matter of arbitration and the rights of the parties in respect thereof have been finally determined. One cannot ignore the fact there is no provision under the Act that permits OPaL to challenge a procedural order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. For an order to qualify as an “award”, the test of finality is undoubtedly essential, but that does not mean that any final view of the Arbitral Tribunal would come within the ambit of an “award” . Dr. Singhvi also argued that the Courts should always step in to advance the cause of justice. He submitted that there may not be any case law directly dealing with identical or similar facts but that should not prevent the Court to adopt an incremental progressive attitude towards development of law. The argument is outwardly attractive and enchanting but, I feel that there are no milestones that the Court has to accomplish. The role of the Court is to interpret the law and apply it to the facts of the case. Imagine the scenario, where the Court‟s perspective on growth in law runs counter to the legislative intention that is in sync with the modern trends. If the Act does not permit a challenge at this stage, the Court would not take upon itself the burden to adopt an approach that is perceived to be a rational one. The Court has the bounden duty to apply the law as it exists and not interpret it merely because it appears to be a more satisfactory view. I cannot create an opening, if the door is tightly shut. If the law permits an entry, only then the Court can decide the extent for
