The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'Court' in section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and its application to determine the maintainability of the appeal.

ORDER :

1. We have heard learned advocate Mr. JF Mehta appearing for the appellant SAPL Steel LLP and learned advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna representing respondent No. 1 Abhyuday Cooperative Bank Limited on the issue of maintainability of this first appeal.

2. By way of this first appeal filed u/s 16 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”), the appellant assails orders passed below Exh.106 in Dispute No. 10 of 2019, whereby the learned Arbitrator partly allowed the application and restrained original defendant No. 6, their partners or assignee from transferring, alienating and encumbering the immovable property stated in the schedule in favour of third party and further restrained not to create right, title and interest of third party in regard to the said immovable property till final disposal of Dispute No. 10 of 2019.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Bank advanced financial assistance of Rs.4 crore and odd amount for purchasing of the plant and machinery to respondent No. 2-partnership firm, respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the partners of the said firm and to secure the loan, the respondent No. 1 got various properties of respondent No. 3 mortgaged to respondent No. 1 Bank. The respondent No. 2 and its partners failed to replay the said loan. Respondent Bank therefore, invoked statutory arbitration and pursuant to the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator, respondent No. 1 bank filed its claim statement, wherein respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 7 to 12 were also joined. The respondent No. 1 bank has also sought the injunction and the learned Arbitrator was pleased to grant stay against disposal of such properties. The respondent bank made an application Exh.106 seeking interim injunction against the properties of the present appellant (respondent No. 6 in the claim petition). Learned Sole Arbitrator was pleased to allow application Exh.106 and therefore, present first appeal.

4. On the maintainability issue, learned advocate Mr. Sethna categorically raised argument that the appeal u/s 37 of the Act is not maintainable before this Court inter alia on the ground that in view of section 2(1)(e) of the Act, the Court means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.

5. Upon definition of the Court stated in section 2(1)(e) of the Act reading together with section 37 of the Act, learned advocate Mr. Sethna submitted that it is the Court of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which owes the jurisdiction to try and decide an appellable order stated in section 37 of the Act. He would further submit that in view of the definition of “court” contained in section 2(1)(e) of the Act and this Court having no original jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, this first appeal should go to the Court of Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction and it cannot be decided before this Court.

6. Principally upon above contention, having referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pande and Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, (2007) 1 SCC 467 as well as in case of Yashpal Chopra and Co. vs. Union of India passed in SLP No. 18324 of 2022, learned advocate Mr. Sethna objects that this first appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

7. In order to come out from the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Sethna, learned advocate Mr. JF Mehta appearing for the appellant SAPL Steel LLP submits that section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 governs the reference of dispute to the Tribunal and according to sub section (4) of section 84, Where a dispute has been referred to arb