ORDER
D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 31-12-2005, passed by the Arbitrator, in an interlocutory application filed under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The facts in narrow compass are as under:
There are certain disputes between the two parties in respect of an agreement of sale-dated 28-6-2004 for a site measuring 4000 square yards situated at China Waltair, Visakhapatnam. The further details are not relevant for the resolution of the present controversy. While so, the petitioner, who is the vendor, filed an application before the Arbitrator taking certain objections, which are in nature of attributing a sort of misconduct to the Arbitrator. The nature of those averments and the details of which are again inconsequential at present. Upon such an application, the Arbitrator passed an order, which is impugned herein, rejecting all those objections. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. At the out set, we are of the view that a revision petition of the present nature is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act.
4. As already pointed out, the interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act.
5. In fact, Section 13 of the Act deals with the procedure to challenge the appointment of an Arbitrator as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act. The grounds of challenge for the appointment of an Arbitrator are enumerated under Section 12.
6. When it comes to the procedure to be adopted to challenge the appointment of an Arbitrator, Section 13, as a whole, deals with the procedure in that regard. The relevant provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
(4) If a challenge under any procedure agreed upon by the parties or under the procedure under Sub-section (2) is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.
(5) Where an arbitral award is made under Sub-section (4), the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34.
7. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Arbitrator is at liberty to proceed with the procedural (sic. arbitral) proceedings in the event of failure of the applicant, in the proceedings challenging the appointment of an Arbitrator.
8. In fact, Sub-section (5) of Section 13 makes further the situation abundantly clear, that when an arbitral award is made under Sub-section (4), the un-successful party, who challenged the appointment of an Arbitrator may make an application for setting aside the award in the proceedings that are to be initiated under Section 34 of the Act.
9. Section 34 gives liberty to the parties to the arbitral proceedings to challenge the award on various grounds including on the ground that the award is contrary to the public policy of India.
10. Therefore, from a reading of Section 34 of the Act, it is obvious that the party who lost on preliminary grounds and eventually suffered an order, during the pendency of the proceedings before an Arbitrator, is not precluded from taking such ground, as a ground to set aside the award in the proceedings if initiated, under Section 34 of the Act. Consequently, as indicated above, Sub-section (5) of Section 13 itself is absolutely unambiguous that a revision petition under Article 227 cannot be maintained before this Court.
11. Further more, a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited 2005 (7) SCJ 461 : 2005 (1) Decision Today 1053, observed elaborately in clear terms at paragraphs 45 and 46, which are extracted hereunder:
It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the Arbitral Tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating its grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the Arbitral Tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal is, after all, a creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though, if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the Arbitral Tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.
The object of minimizing judicial intervention while the matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly be defeated if the High Court could be approached under Article 227 or under Article 226 of the Constitution against every order made by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that once the arbitration has commenced in the Arbitral Tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at an earlier stage.
12. The above observation makes the present situation very clear. Accordingly, in the light of the above legal position and bound by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court as extracted above, we have to hold that the revision petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to take all objections exercising his right as provided under Section 34 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.