DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal tenability of the order dated 28 th July, 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein a Division Bench in CM No. 15530 of 2013 placing reliance on Satpal P. Malhotra and Ors. vs. Puneet Malhotra & Ors.Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2010 decided on 14th June, 2013 that has followed the decision in MCD vs. International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 250 has expressed the view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') would be applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Act). Be it stated, while expressing the view that the CPC is applicable to an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Act, the High Court has in the impugned order opined that the cross objection preferred by the respondent herein was maintainable and accordingly entertained the same after condoning the delay.
(3.) Assailing the said order, it is submitted by Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, that the scheme of the 1996 Act does not grant any space or make any provision as regards the applicability of CPC unlike the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the 1940 Act') and in the absence of any express provision, the legislative intendment is not to make it applicable. It is his further submission that Sections 5, 34, 37 and 50 of the 1996 Act constitute a complete code and it clearly provides the measures for adjudging or deciding the validity of an award or even to adjudge the defensibility of an interim order. It is urged by him that recourse to any other mode under the CPC to challenge an order or the award passed under the Act would create an anomalous situation and frustrate the intention of the legislature.;