Order

This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is moved by the petitioner challenging an order of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition No. 288 of 1998 moved before him under Section 11 sub-section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd.1 that orders under Section 11 of the Act are not judicial orders. The relevant observations are found in paragraph 12 of the Report as under :

“Under the 1996 Act, appointment of arbitrator/s is made as per the provision of Section 11 which does not require the court to pass a judicial order appointing arbitrator/s. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in referring to these provisions of the 1940 Act while inter­preting Section 4 of the new Act.”

3. It is now well settled that petition under Article 136 can lie for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. As the learned Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11(6) of the Act acts