- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mohan Das being aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.3, Jodhpur whereby the learned court below dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner Mohan Das against the interim award/order passed by the learned Arbitrator on 11.3.2007, as not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) The learned Arbitrator had passed an order / interim award on 11.3.2007 appointing Mr. Abdul Latif, Advocate as Receiver-cum-Commissioner and directed the present petitioner to handover the possession of shop and account books to the said Receiver-cum-Commissioner in respect of the dispute arising between the parties from a partnership between them under a partnership deed dated 29.10.1998.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rekha Borana submitted that the order dated 11.3.2007 passed by the learned Arbitrator was an 'interim order' passed by him in the arbitration proceedings which were initiated by the respondent Smt. Jaya Vyas purportedly for rendition of accounts in the partnership dispute between the parties and the said order dated 11.3.2007 could not be said to be an 'interim award' and, therefore, she submitted that since the said order dated 11.3.2007 was only an 'interim order' passed by the learned Arbitrator in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, the same was appealable to the Court of learned District Judge under Section 37 of the Act. She also urged that the powers of Court under Section 9 of the said Act to grant interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after making the arbitral award as prescribed under Section 9 is akin to powers of learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act which provides for interim measures which can be ordered by the arbitral tribunal and, therefore, such interim order, if any passed by the arbitral tribunal is subject to appeal before the learned court below and, therefore, the appeal could not have been dismissed as not maintainable by the impugned order dated 2.6.2007 by the learned Appellate Court below.;