Introduction of section 37

Section 37 of the arbitration and conciliation act applies only when pre-conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. This section contemplates that authority which is passing order should be court as authority which is hearing appeal should also be court. The statutory right of appeal against an award vested in a party under this section cannot be forfeited by the mere fact that the second arbitrator passed an award in compliance with the order of the court appointing the arbitrator.

Section 37 of arbitration and conciliation act

Appealable orders

(1) 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:–

²[(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;

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

(c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.]

(2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal–

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

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

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

Landmark Judgements of section 37

Uttar Pradesh Co-op Federation Ltd vs Sunder Bros, 1967

If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion, but if the discretion has been exercised unreasonably, then it would be open to the appellate court to interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

Ascot Estates Pvt Ltd vs Bon Vivant Life Style Pvt Ltd, 2016

Merely because the ordinance, which is indisputably later in time, happens to trench upon the subject of arbitral disputes does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the same impliedly repeals or derogates the conflicting provisions contained in the1996 act concerning the right of appeal.

Saipem Triune Engg. Pvt Ltd vs Indian oil Petronas Pvt Ltd, 1998

No appeal lies when an order is passed under section 8 because the spirit of the act is to minimise the interference of civil courts in disputes covered by the arbitration clause. Since an order of reference can be prime facie or final, it is open to agitate the existence or maintainability or efficacy of an arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal itself whose pronouncements will be amenable to assaults by way of an appeal.

Get Expert Legal Advice

₹ 1500/- ₹ 699/- Save 54%

Don`t wait any longer, book your consultation today

Book Now

• Expertise you can rely on, and results you can trust.

Niranjan Lal Todi vs Nandlal Todi, 2016

An appeal was filed against the order passed by the single judge dismissing application for termination of the mandate of the arbitrator to arbitrate disputes between the parties. Held that it cannot be said that order under appeal is either without jurisdiction or not an order under the 1996 act.

Conclusion

The above-mentioned section has given not only a right of appeal which is unqualified, but has also fixed the forum by laying down a test, the test being that it should be the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order. This section does not apply to a case where a pre-deposit of a portion of the amount awarded is not made and consequently the application is dismissed.