Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It was submitted that the grievance of the respondent in the said OMP was required to be looked into by the learned Single Judge as it clearly fell within the ambit of Section 34 and, in particular, Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the said Act. But, as indicated in the impugned order, the respondent relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and Others: (2008) 7 SCC 663 with the request that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC would be moved before the Arbitrator for setting aside the ex-parte award. The learned Single Judge agreed with this and also granted liberty to the respondent to revive the said OMP in case the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC failed.

4. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the respondent has been granted liberty, first of all, to approach the Arbitrator by moving an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the award and, secondly, to revive the said OMP in case the said application failed. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rabindra Singh (supra) was not rendered in the context of arbitration under the said Act. The observation that was perhaps relied upon by the respondent and considered by the learned Single Judge was to the following effect:-

"18. .....All courts in a situation of this nature have the incidental power to set aside an ex parte order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice."

5. The said observation pertains to Courts and not to Arbitral Tribunals or Arbitrators which can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be Courts. Consequently, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision in Rabindra Singh (supra) was clearly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was also contended that once an award has been made by an Arbitrator, the only power which the Arbitrator can exercise in respect of the award has been specified under Section 33 of the said Act. It was submitted that a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not contemplated under Section 33 of the said Act. Consequently, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, after some arguments, submitted that either the Arbitrator may decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which has already been filed or the OMP be revived and the learned Single Judge be required to dispose of the same on merits.

7. We agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Arbitrator does not have powers akin to the powers given under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The only powers contemplated, post the making of an award, are prescribed in Section 33 of the said Act.