- (1.) Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court holding that the appeal filed by it was not maintainable as the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act').
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is clearly maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case is covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. 2001 (8) SCC 470 and State of Goa v. Western Builders 2006 (6) SCC 239, and the High Court was justified in holding that the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that certain aspects which have not been raised specifically in the grounds raised before this Court but submitted during the course of arguments cannot be taken note of.
(3.) Section 37(1)(b) of the Act is in pari materia to Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'Old Act'). The provisions in the Acts read as follows: "1996 Act: Section 37(1)(b) "An appeal shall lie from the following orders of the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely :- b. Setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act". 1940 Act: Section 39. Appealable orders: "(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeal from original decrees of the Court passing the order :- An order: .................. (vi) Setting aside or refusing to set aside an award".;