Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 09.07.2004 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.4967/2003 preferred by the respondent no.1 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). The said writ petition was filed by the respondent no.1 IOCL against the order dated 02.06.2003 of the respondent no.2 Sole Arbitrator, in an arbitration proceeding between the appellant and the respondent no.1 IOCL.

2. The respondent no.2 was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 07.05.2002 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panipat, Haryana in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 preferred by the appellant. The respondent no.2 Arbitrator entered upon reference and directed the appellant to file its Statement of Claim with supporting documents. The appellant failed to file the Statement of Claim inspite of repeated opportunities and which lead to the respondent no.2 Arbitrator to, vide order dated 12.03.2003, hold the appellant to have lost its right to file the Statement of Claim. However since the respondent no.1 IOCL stated that it also had claims against the appellant, the matter was adjourned for the respondent no.1 IOCL to file its Statement of Claim. The appellant applied for recall of the order dated 12.03.2003 holding that it had lost its right to file Statement of Claim. The respondent no.2 Arbitrator after hearing, vide order dated 02.06.2003 allowed the said application of the appellant, condoned the delay on the part of the appellant in filing the Statement of Claim and took the Statement of Claim of the appellant on record.

3. It was impugning the aforesaid order of the respondent no.2 Arbitrator that the respondent no.1 IOCL filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises.

4. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order has held that two questions arose for consideration i.e. the maintainability of the writ petition against the order of the respondent no.2 Arbitrator and the powers of the respondent no.2 Arbitrator to recall his earlier order. The learned single Judge has held the writ petition to be maintainable and the mandate of the respondent no.2 Arbitrator having stood terminated qua the claim of the appellant and the respondent no.2 Arbitrator having become functus officio in this regard and thus the respondent no.2 Arbitrator being not empowered to consider the application of the appellant for recall. Accordingly, the order dated 02.06.2003 of the respondent no.2 Arbitrator recalling the order dated 12.03.2003 and taking the Statement of Claim of the appellant on record was set aside.

5. Notice of this appeal was issued and the proceedings before the respondent no.2 Arbitrator (vis-à-vis claim of the respondent no.1 IOCL) were though permitted to continue but final award therein stayed. The appeal was subsequently on 10.01.2005 admitted for hearing and the proceedings before the Arbitrator were stayed. When this appeal came up for hearing on 12.01.2010, it was the contention of the counsel for the appellant that though the notice of the writ petition was issued only on the aspect of maintainability but after hearing on the aspect of maintainability, besides the order holding the writ to be maintainable, order was also pronounced on the merits and on which arguments had not been heard. However since considerable time since the judgment of the learned Single Judge had lapsed, the counsel for the appellant stated that the merits of the matter be also considered by the Division Bench only.

6. Thereafter when this appeal came up for hearing, attention of the counsels was invited to Awasthi Construction Co. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE /5926/2012 holding that, the Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to review procedural orders and the writ remedy to be not available against the orders of the Arbitral Tribunal and the matter was adjourned to give an opportunity to the counsels to study the said judgment.

7. The counsels have b