IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the statutory bar against appeals under Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, remains effective until formally amended, thereby limiting the avenues for appeal in arbitration-related matters.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Desh Mitra Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. There is a delay of 135 days as on 01.05.2024 in filing the special appeal. Counsel for the respondents has no objection in application for condonation of delay being allowed, therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay and condone the delay in filing the special appeal.

3. This special appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 'High Court Rues') challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.11.2023 passed in Arbitration and Conciliation Application under Section 11 (4) No. 3 of 2022 (M/s Moksh Innovations Inc. Thru. Manager vs. E-City Property Management and Services (P) Ltd. and others) as also the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the said Single Judge Bench in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 178 of 2023 (M/s Moksh Innovations Inc. Thru Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht vs. E-City Property Management and Services Pvt. Ltd.).

4. At the very outset, Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to ground (h). Without saying much, we have perused the same. We have also seen the averment made in support of the application for interim relief and an order dated 16.02.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 718 of 2008. Apart from the fact that the wording of ground (h) is highly objectionable, we have summoned the scanned copy of records of First Appeal From Order No. 718 of 2008 and we find that the learned Single Judge who has passed the impugned judgments/orders had not signed the vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant herein who was the appellant in First Appeal From Order No. 718 of 2008. The vakalatnama is signed by Mr. B.K. Saxena, Advocate. The learned Judge at the relevant time was junior to Mr. Saxena. Mr. Saxena had filed his vakalatnama and thereafter moved an application for recall of some order in the said First Appeal From Order No. 718 of 2008 and on 16.02.2009 the learned Single Judge who at that time was an Advocate holding the brief of his senior informed a fact to the Division Bench, nothing more to seek recall of an order. There is no other pleading nor any material on record of this appeal that he was the counsel for appellant in his independent capacity in that appeal or in any other proceedings on behalf of the appellant.

5. Most important, when we confronted the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether at any point of time during pending of Application under Section 11 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1996') the said order dated 16.02.2009 and the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, he submitted that this was not brought to the notice because the appellant himself was not aware of this fact during pendency of the said proceedings.

6. We find that against impugned judgment dated 18.11.2023 a review application was filed, but, we do not find any such ground in the said review application nor any such averment in any affidavit or application filed along with it informing the learned Single Judge about the said fact. The learned counsel for the appellant says that this fact came to the knowledge of the appellant only after decision in the review application. If it is so, then, how the learned Single Judge could have known that 15 years ago he had been holding the brief of his senior and had made some mention before the Division Bench in an application for recall in First Appeal From Order No. 718 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein. In these circumstances it is highly unjust to make such an averment as has been made in ground (h) and the affidavit in support of the interim relief.

7. One could understand if this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and then an order had been passed on merits.