1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2007 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Single Judge made the Award dated 5th April, 1972 Rule of the Court and directed that a decree sheet be prepared in terms of the Award as objections to the Award had already been withdrawn and no objections to the Award were pending.

2. Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant stated that he had no dispute with the Award passed by the learned Arbitrators but as the properties awarded to the Appellant, specially land at Sawan Park, Wazirpur, Delhi, had been fraudulently disposed of by the Respondents, the Award was liable to be set aside. He submitted that the mandate of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 had not been followed by learned Single Judge before making the Award Rule of the Court.

3. At the outset, Mr. Raju Ramchandaran, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents, submitted that the present appeal was not maintainable under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 as it was not against any of the orders mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 39. Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :- 39. Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order:- An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;

.(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;

.(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award; Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court. (2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the [Supreme Court]. (emphasis supplied)

4. Mr. Ramchandaran referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohinder Supply reported at AIR 1962 SC 256 wherein it has been held that the right to appeal is a creature of the statute and the Arbitration Act being a complete code within itself has given a right to appeal only in respect of certain orders and consequently the right to appeal against other orders has expressly been taken away. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the said case are reproduced hereinbelow :- (5) .. Under S. 39 (1), an appeal lies from the orders specified in that sub- section and from no others. The legislature has plainly expressed itself that right of appeal against orders passed under the Arbitration Act may be exercised only in respect of certain orders. The right to appeal against other orders is expressly taken away. If by the express provision contained in S. 39(1), a right to appeal from a judgment which may otherwise be available under the Letters patent is restricted, there is no ground for holding that cl. (2) does not similarly restrict the exercise of appellate power granted by the Letters Patent...

.(6) But the right to appeal is a creature of statute; no litigant has an inherent right to appeal against a decision of a Court (14) The intention of the legislature in enacting sub

.s. (1) of S. 104 is clear : the right to appeal conferred by any other law for the time being in force is expressly preserved. This intention is emphasized by S. 4 which provides that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code is intended to limit or otherwise affect any special jurisdiction or power conferred by or under any other law for the time being in force