Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Puneet Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 29.08.2024, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a Sole Arbitrator in an arbitration case between M/s Universal Contractors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, whereby an application filed by the opposite party (M/s Universal Contractors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.) for being provided with copy of the complete contract bond and that of final bill, has been allowed. Further, the prayer for change of name of the claimant from 'M/s Universal Contractors and Engineers Private Limited' to 'M/ s Universal Contractors and Engineers Limited' has also been allowed, as the claimant company was previously having the status of private limited entity but subsequently its status has changed to a public limited company. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for recall of this order which request has been rejected by means of an order dated 21.09.2024 and the petitioners have challenged validity of the said order also.

3. In SBP & Company Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another: (2005) 8 SCC 618 a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is after all, the creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.

46. The object of minimizing judicial intervention while the matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly be defeated if the High Court could be approached under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against every order made by the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that once the arbitration has commenced in the arbitral tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at an earlier stage."

4. The above mentioned law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed in Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and another: (2020) 15 SCC 706, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the statutory provisions contained in Sections 5 and 37 of Arbiration and Conciliation Act, which provide as follows:

"5. Extent of judicial intervention.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.

37. Appealable orders.- (1) An appeal shall li