BELA M.TRIVEDI,AJAY RASTOGI, J. - (1.) THE instant intra court appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th December, 2012 modifying the order of the Addl. District Judge dated 18th May, 2009 passed on an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge after hearing counsel for the parties modified the order of the Ld. Trial Judge in exercise of its power under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution balancing equities of the parties. Counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that a remedy of appeal to a party affected against an order passed by the learned trial court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 is available u/sec. 37 of the Act and once the effective statutory remedy was available to the respondents, the writ petition was not maintainable and this point was specifically raised as one of the preliminary objection in the reply to the writ petition but was not considered by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated. 18th May, 2009 could not be interfered under writ jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents Mr. Kala on the other hand submits that even if there is remedy being provided under the Statute, still the discretionary remedy of this court available under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed and once the learned Single Judge was of the view that the order passed by the Trial Judge under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 requires modification, there appears no error or infirmity in the order impugned which requires interference.;