- (1.) This appeal would involve a very short question as to whether the appellant would be entitled to assail the part of the order that was passed in an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. Amitava Ghosh, learned counsel, opposing the application would strenuously oppose the appeal by questioning the maintainability. He would refer to the well-known decision in S.B.P. & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, 2005 8 SCC 618 : Mr. Ghosh would rely upon paragraphs 44 and 47 to contend, once it is a judicial order, the same, as far as High Court is concerned, would be final and the only avenue open to a party feeling aggrieved by the order of the Chief Justice would be to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Under the appropriate provision of the said Act of 1996, the Chief Justice or his designate would be empowered to deal with the prayer for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11.
(2.) In the instant case, the learned Single Judge so nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice dealt with the issue. While dealing with the issue, His Lordship observed as follows: "If such issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, the petitioner will be entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 2 lakhs with interest thereon from the date of the arbitral tribunal's decision on such preliminary issue at the rate of 10% per annum which the respondent will remain liable to pay in addition to any other sum or interest or costs that may be awarded against the respondent in the reference."
(3.) The appellant would object to the extract quoted .;