DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 16.3.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby its application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996' for short) has been rejected. The said application was filed for setting aside an interim award dated 22.3.2017, passed by the panel of arbitrators of the Refined Sugar Association, London. The appellant has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as according to it, the impugned award was a foreign award and the jurisdiction to hear the same was vested in the High Court by virtue of clause (ii) of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996.
(2.) No sooner had the counsel for the appellant commenced his arguments, than, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the present intra-court appeal by contending that the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is not maintainable before the Division Bench of this Court. He firstly submitted that rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 does not envisage such an appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his power under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. According to him the Division Bench of this Court is neither an appellate forum nor is the Single Bench, a Court subordinate to the Division Bench.
(3.) His second contention regarding the maintainability of the appeal has been that since the award under consideration was passed in London, the learned Single Judge of this Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the award; and for the same reasons, the Division Bench of this Court also cannot hear the appeal against the rejection of the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.;