under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an appeal lies to a Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, against an order of Arbitral Tribunal either granting or refusing to grant a relief under Section 17 of the Act, 1996. 7. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:— (a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order granting of the arbitral tribunal.— (a) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court. 4 Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the petitioner herein filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram against an order granted as an interim measure under Section 17 of the Act 1996. Therefore, rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein by virtue of the impugned order (e filing order) dated 31.08.2020, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be sustained.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1016 of 2020

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

Heard Sri P.V.S.A.Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

in pursuance of the orders of this court directing to take out personal

notice to the respondent, he had taken out the notice and filed proof of

service of the same in the Registry, vide USR No.30150 of 2020. In

support of the proof of service, a track report issued by the Department

of Posts showing the delivery of the item on 14.09.2020, is also filed by

the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Registry. Despite service of

the notice there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. The present Revision, instituted under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenges the online order passed by the Court of

the Principal District Judge, Ananthapur, dated 31.08.2020 in e filing

No.CMA.69126 of 2020. The respondent herein filed Arbitration

Application No.5 of 2020 for arbitration of the dispute pertaining to nonpayment of loan instalments. Along with the said Arbitration

Application, the respondent herein also filed I.A.No.136 of 2020 under

Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for

attachment of the immovable properties mentioned in the said

application. The learned Sole Arbitrator (Arbitral Tribunal), vide order

dated 03.08.2020, granted conditional attachment of the immovable 

 2

property under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

and the said order reads as follows :

 “In view of above facts, in exercise of the powers conferred

on me under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 do hereby order for the Conditional Attachment of

Immovable Property belonging to the Respondent as

mentioned under the schedule here under:

 Further the Respondent is hereby informed that if he

desires to have this attachment raised, and that the

respondent shall furnish cash security to the extent of the

claim amount of Rs.27,53,900/- by depositing the amount to

the claimant and producing the original challan / receipt

issued thereon to this Tribunal i.e., Sri M.Satyanarayana

Swamy, Arbitrator, Special Judicial Magistrate (Retd.),

H.No.5/178, Gowrav Residency, Alamur Road, Rudrampet,

Ananthapuram – 515004 on or before 05.09.2020 at 11.00

a.m. without fail for raising the attachment, if he fails to do

so within the stipulated period, this conditional attachment

shall be deemed to have been confirmed and made absolute

for the entire claim amount”.

 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Sole Arbitrator on

03.08.2020, the petitioner herein preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuram under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 vide e filing case No.AP 2/CMA/69126/28.08.2020. The office of

the said Court rejected the said appeal and called upon as to how the

said case would be maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908.

 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

Memorandum of Appeal in the aforesaid C.M.A. was represented on

31.08.2020 by mentioning the correct provision of law i.e., Section 37 of 

 3

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, after the said re-submission of the appeal

by the petitioner, vide the impugned online order dated 31.08.2020,

made an endorsement that the case “already rejected”. In the above

back ground, the petitioner herein is before this Court with the present

revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

P.V.S.A.Rama Murthy, is two fold in this regard. Firstly, he contends

that simply because a wrong provision of law is quoted in the

Memorandum of Grounds of the C.M.A., appeal ought not to have been

rejected by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge when

there is a provision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Secondly, it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel that under

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an appeal lies to

a Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the

Court passing the order, against an order of Arbitral Tribunal either

granting or refusing to grant a relief under Section 17 of the Act, 1996.

7. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the

provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the

Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court

passing the order, namely:—

(a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;

(b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.

(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order granting of the arbitral

tribunal.—

(a) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section

16; or

(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this

section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal

to the Supreme Court. 

 4

Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the petitioner herein filed

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the court of the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram against an order granted as an interim

measure under Section 17 of the Act 1996. Therefore, rejection of the

appeal filed by the petitioner herein by virtue of the impugned order (e

filing order) dated 31.08.2020, in the considered opinion of this court,

cannot be sustained.

8. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting

aside the impugned online order dated 31.08.2020, rejecting the appeal

filed by the petitioner and the petitioner is granted two weeks’ time to represent the appeal before the Court of the learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram for consideration of the same by the

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge on merits. It is open for

the petitioner herein to file an appropriate application seeking

Interlocutory Order. The petitioner herein shall also comply with all

other requirements as per law. It is made clear that for a period of four

weeks from today, there shall be stay of further proceedings in

Arbitration Application No.5 of 2020 before the Sole Arbitrator (Arbitral

Tribunal). There shall be no order as to costs of the C.M.A.

Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in the C.M.A. shall

stand closed.

 _________________________

JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

_________________________________

JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

Date : 16.10.2020

Issue C.C.by 20.10.2020

b/o.

 sj 

 5

101

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1016 of 2020

Date : 16.10.2020

SJ