- (1.) ALL the four miscellaneous appeals were heard together. About maintainability :
(2.) THE registry has raised doubts about the maintainability of the appeals. Mr. Biren Poddar, appearing for the respondent, also submitted that the appeals are not maintainable for the following reasons. S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") does not provide for appeal against the orders in question by which the application (filed on behalf of the appellant under S.34 of the Act, challenging the award) has been returned on the ground that the District Court at Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that the Act being Special Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, and in any event, such appeal is not contemplated even under S.104 read with Order XLIII, R.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure as it speaks of "plaint" and not "application".
(3.) MR . A. K. Srivastav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that S.141 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant under S.34 of the Act registered as miscellaneous case, is like plaint in terms of Order XLIII, R.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which, these appeals have been filed. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITI Limited v. Siemens Public Communications Network Limited 2002 5 Supreme Court Cases 510) : AIR 2002 SC 2308.;