The main legal point established is the need to minimize the judicial intervention in the arbitral process, and the requirement for appeals to be based on orders specifically mentioned in Section 37 of the Act.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals purportedly under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act) purportedly because that is the precise question which this Court is called upon to answer, have been filed by the above named appellant against the orders/directions/findings/observations dated 19. 8. 2001 and 10. 9. 2000 made by the sole arbitrator Mr. Justice a. M. Ahmadi (former chief Justice of India) in pending arbitral proceedings in relation to certain disputes which have arisen between the parties. As an objection has been raised about the very maintainability of these appeals before this Court at the very outset, the counsel for the parties have been heard at length on this question and therefore this order is confined to the question of maintainability of the appeal under the said provision of law.

( 2 ) BEFORE coming to the real controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the background leading to the orders/findings of the sole arbitrator which are sought to be assailed in these appeals. Disputes having arisen between. the parties, the parties entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the MOU) dated 8/01/1999 which, inter alia, stipulated that in cage of difference of opinion on any matter and if a settlement is not arrived at, the matter will be REFERRED TO to the arbitration by Hon ble Mr. Justice A. M. Ahmadi (formar chief Justice of India) as the sole arbitrator. Pursuant to the said MOU, the arbitral proceedings commenced before the sole arbitrator.

( 3 ) DURING the course of the proceedings, an application dated 7. 4. 2001 under Section 17 of the Act was moved on behalf^of the respondents Vikram Kapur and rajiv Kapur for a direction oh the appellant herein to disclose the share holding structure and the composition of the Board of Directors of Limrose and for restraining the said Company through the appellants from dealing with or in any way encumbering, selling, alienating, parting, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the shares of Atlas Cycles Industries Ltd. held by Limrose.

( 4 ) AT the 25th hearing held on 12/05/2001 before the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. O. P. Khaitan, counsel for the respondents REFERRED TO to his note dated 8/05/2001 wherein several concerns arising out of the statutory auditors papers have been raised. The learned Arbitrator after going through the record of the Malanpur Unit in support of the allegations and on the basis of The same, the held the view that the discrepancies poined out by Mr. Khaitan, prima facie, called for an. explanation by the. appellant Mr. Arun kapur who was In-charge of the Malanpur Unit during the relevant- period; A request was also made on behalf of the respondents that an expert may be appointed to look into those aspects and submit his report to the arbitrator. On the request of the counsel for the appellant, the learned Arbitrator deferred the circulation of the minutes of the Meeting for three days. On 14/05/2001, the sole arbitrator received a fax message from the appellant stating that he had no objection if an independent expert from the firm of m/s. Ernst and Young was appointed to scrutinise the accounts in respect of which the respondent s counsel had circulated notes based on the report of the statutory auditors. As it was not objected to from the side of the respondents, the arbitrator appointed representative of M/s. Ernst and Young to look into the accounts sheets supplied by the statutory auditor and the notes filed by the counsel of the respondents and directed them to submit the report within a month. Each group was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 with M/s. Ernst and Young as initial payment, subject to paying their charges when the report was submitted. The arbitrator also directed that the representatives will evolve his/her own procedure and were free to discuss the matter singally or jointly with the members of the Malanpur family as he/s