UNION OF INDIA Vs. MONORANJAN MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been filed by the Union of India and General Manager, Eastern Railway against the judgment dated 25th September, 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in AP No. 161 of 1998 (reported in AIR 1999 Cal 117) whereby, applications filed under Ss. 10 and 11of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (1996 Act for short) have been allowed and the Learned Single Judge has directed that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice of the High Court for appointing 5 several - sole Arbitrators in terms of S. 11 of 1996 Act in respect of the contract Agreements relating to the jurisdiction of 5 Courts at Howrah, Burdwan, Bolpur, Suriand the High Court of Calcutta.

(2.) At the very outset the respondents in the appeal have raised the basic question of maintainability of the appeal, relying upon S. 37 of 1996 Act. The contention of the respondents is that in view of the clear language employed in S. 37 of 1996 Act, no appeal lies against an order passed under S. 11 of the Act since S. 37 is restrictive with respect to the filing of appeals and is specifically confined to appeals only in respect of such specific types of orders as are mentioned therein. Analogy is drawn to S. 39 of 1940 Act.

(3.) In order to understand and appreciate the basic objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, we have to look to S. 37 of the Act which reads thus :