( 1 ) THE petitioner above named has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short the act ) against order dated 17. 11. 2004 passed by Arbitral Tribunal holding that the prohibition contained in Section 69 of the Partnership Act is not applicable to the proceedings before Abitral Tribunal. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent herein is an unincorporated joint venture between two Companies incorporated outside India. In October 1996, the petitioner had invited bids for the construction of the Delhi-Noida Bridge Project under an engineering, procurement and construction contract (hereinafter referred to as EPC Contract ). In response thereto respondent submitted their bid which was accepted vide letter of acceptance dated 24. 12. 1997. An agreement was signed between the petitioner and the respondent on 19. 1. 1998 in Tokyo, Japan, for execution of the Delhi- noida Bridge Project. The said agreement also contains an arbitration clause. On dispute having arisen between the parties the matter was referred to Dispute Review board in terms of sub-clause 67. 1 of part II. The findings of the Dispute Review Board were communicated to the parties vide the letter dated 21. 03. 2001. Aggrieved by the finding of the Dispute Review Board, the respondent in terms of clause 67. 1 of the Contract invoked the arbitration clause vide their letters dated 3. 4. 2001, 14. 5. 2001 and 25. 9. 2001. The petitioner and respondent appointed their respective arbitrators and two arbitrators appointed the presiding Arbitrator. The respondent who was claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal filed claims. The petitioner thereupon filed an application for dismissal of claim, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent/ claimant was an unregistered partnership and therefore it cannot launch any proceedings to enforce a right arising out of the agreement in view of section 69 (3) of the Partnership act. This application was opposed by the respondent by filing a reply thereto. Their contention was that section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act does not apply to the arbitration proceedings. After considering submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, learned arbitral tribunal passed the impugned order dated 17. 11. 2004 holding that the prohibition contained in section 69 of the Partnership Act is not applicable to the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed Objections under section 34 of the Act treating it to be an interim award. The respondent has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of these objections under Section 34 of the Act. According to the respondent the impugned order is a ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal on its own jurisdiction as contemplated under section 16 (2) of the act and therefore the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Court under Section 34 after the final award has been passed in accordance with section 16 (6) of the Act. Petitioner s contention that section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act is applicable to the proceedings before to the Arbitral Tribunal is also vehemently contested by the respondent. This petition raises two important questions of law:- (a) Whether the bar contained in Section 69 (3) of the partnership Act is applicable to the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal? (b) Whether the impugned order decides any jurisdictional plea referred to in Section 16 (2) or 16 (3) of the Act in which case the objections will not be maintainable at this stage ?

( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 69 of the Partnership Act reads as under:-

69. Effect of non-registration- (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any pers