A.P.THOMAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred by the claimant under sub-section(2) of Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity). Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in A.S.Nos.23/2004, 22/2004 and 24/2004 dated 21.11.2008 whereunder petition filed by the claimant to set aside the order/award dated 21.02.2004 passed by Sole Arbitrator ruling that Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the matters and terminating the proceedings has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri.A.G.Shivanna, learned counsel appearing for claimant and Sri.Abhinay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.N.S.Sanjay Gowda for Respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) Sri.Abhinay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.N.S.Sanjay Gowda for Respondents 1 and 2 has raised an initial objection with regard to maintainability of these appeals, contending interalia that sole Arbitrator had accepted the plea put forward by respondent regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal after examining the rival contentions and by award/order dated 21.02.2004 has ruled that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the matter by terminating the proceedings against which claimant filed an application under section 34 of the Act before Civil Court which came to be examined by the jurisdictional court as an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 37 which order is now being assailed in the present appeal by invoking subsection(2) of section 37 and contends against an order passed under sub-section (2) of section 37 by the competent court to set aside the award, there cannot be any second appeal against such order under Arbitration Act, 1996 since it does not provide for such second appeal. Hence, he prays for rejection of these appeals.