Dismissed¶33

M/S.Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. M/S.Asian Steels

Orissa HC19 Jan 2024ARBA/43/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of appeal under section-37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by party whose own section-34 application succeeded and got arbitral award set aside; person aggrieved as basic feature to challenge judgment/order/award; appealable orders; Chapter IX Appeals; ARBA No.43 of 2018; ARBP No.06 of 2012; District Judge Koraput at Jeypore; judgment dated 26.04.2018; Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Aian Steels; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; D. Dash J.; decided 19.01.2024; appeal dismissed, no order as to cost.

What did the court decide?

Since the learned District Judge set aside the award upon an application under section-34 of the A & C Act filed by the present Appellant, the present Appeal at the instance of this Appellant, who was the Applicant before the learned District Judge, is not maintainable. ¶29

M/S.Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs M/S.Asian Steels — Arbitration | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ARBA NO.43 OF 2018

¶3

M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

¶4

….

¶5

Appellant

¶6

Mr. T.N. Murty, Advocate.

¶7

-versus-

¶8

M/s. Aian Steels

¶9

…. Respondent, Mr.B.K. Bhuyan, Advocate.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE D. DASH

ORDER

Order No.

19.01.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

¶17

Upon hearing learned Counsels for the Appellant and Respondent, the judgment dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in ARBP No.06 of 2012, which has been impugned in this Appeal being gone through, this Court finds that the learned District Judge has allowed the Application under section-34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, hereinafter called as ‘The A & C Act’) which had been filed by none other than the present Appellant and the award has been set aside.

¶18

In that view of the matter, turning attention to the provision contained in Chapter-IX of the A & C Act under the heading of “Appeals”, we find that section-37 thereunder describes the orders which are appealable.

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Section-37 of the A & C Act reads as under:-

¶21

“37. Appealable orders- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely: -

¶22

(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;

¶23

(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;

¶24

¶25

(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order of the arbitral tribunal. -

¶26

(a) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or

¶27

(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.

¶28

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or taking away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

¶29

Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the view that by the judgment which has been impugned in this Appeal, since learned District Judge has set aside the award, upon an Application filed by under section-34 of the A & C Act by this Appellant; the present Appeal at the instance of this Appellant who was the Applicant before the learned District Judge is not

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

// 3 //

¶32

maintainable. That apart, this Appellant in view of the aforesaid result in the application under section 34 of the A & C Act, cannot be said to be the person aggrieved which is the basic feature to stand for a party to challenge any judgment/ order/ award etc.

¶33