The main legal point established in the judgment is that interim orders in arbitration proceedings, not falling within the appealable orders under the Act, are not subject to correction by the High Court through Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

(Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.) :

1. This Writ Petition, purportedly, has its genesis in the Order dated 17th of September, 2021 passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition bearing No. 04/2021 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising between the parties in connection with the Parent Partnership Deed dated 2nd of February, 2010 which contained an Arbitration Clause and the subsequent Partnership Deed dated 7th of June, 2014 providing therein that the disputes between the parties would be governed by the terms and conditions of the Parent Partnership Deed. The Court, in terms of the aforesaid Order, with the consent of the parties, appointed Hon’ble Mr Justice (Retd.) M. K. Hanjura, House No. 307, Lane No.4, Anand Vihar, Bohri, Talab Tillu, Jammu as the sole Arbitrator to make the award in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, the parties appeared before the Sole Arbitrator on 9th of October, 2021 and a mechanism/ procedure was devised with regard to the conduct of proceedings after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the proceedings were conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and, in terms of Order dated 15th of April, 2022, the matter was fixed for recording the statement of the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein. On 20th of April, 2022, the matter was again taken up on the face of a text message dated 16th of April, 2022 received by the Sole Arbitrator from the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Petitioner herein via WhatsApp seeking framing of draft issues and the Sole Arbitrator, however, rejected the said WhatsApp message/communication by observing that the framing of issues is not an essential part of the mechanism and procedure to be expanded in an arbitration proceeding. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the Respondent/ Petitioner herein seeking review of aforesaid orders dated 15th of April, 2022 and 20th of April, 2022. The Sole Arbitrator, in terms of Order dated 12th of May, 2022, rejected the application so filed by the Respondent/ Petitioner herein and fixed the matter for recording the statement of the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein. It is these Orders dated 15th of April, 2022; 20th of April, 2020; and 12th of May, 2022 passed by the Sole Arbitrator that have been put to challenge by the Respondent/Petitioner herein through the medium of the Petition in hand filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. When this matter was taken up for consideration, Mr M. A. Qayoom, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, who is on Caveat, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present Petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution. It is submitted that there is no scope for challenging the interim orders passed by the Sole Arbitrator inasmuch as the same are only a part of the proceedings with respect to conduct of the procedure being adopted in the process of arbitration and that the scheme of law does not provide for such a challenge. It is contended that the object of the Act of 1996 is that of minimizing judicial intervention and this important object is always required to be kept at the forefront as and when a Writ Petition is filed under Article 226/227 against the proceedings made under the Act of 1996. It is also argued by the learned Counsel that the impugned orders of the Sole Arbitrator, being interim in nature, are not appealable under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 and that the Petitioner/ the aggrieved party can project his grievance against the award or any in between order that might be passed by the Arbitrator only after the award is finally passed. While strengthening his argument, Mr Qayoom has referred to and relied upon the mandate of the Constitutional Bench Judgment passed by the Hon’ble S