Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, serves as a crucial provision in the framework of arbitration law in India, governing the appealability of certain orders issued during arbitration proceedings. This article delves into the specifics of Section 37, discussing its interplay with other sections, the impact of recent amendments, and critical judicial interpretations that have shaped its application.

Detailed Analysis of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 37(1): Appeals are permitted from orders that:

• Refuse to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8.

• Grant or deny any interim measures under Section 9.

• Set aside or refuse to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.

Section 37(2): Appeals can also be made from an arbitral tribunal’s order that:

• Accepts or rejects pleas concerning its jurisdiction under Section 16(2) or (3).

• Grants or refuses interim measures under Section 17.

Section 37(3): No second appeal is permissible from these orders, although there is a provision for appealing to the Supreme Court.

Are you interested in pursuing a career in Law? The Legal School in collaboration with IndusLaw has created unique programs for a Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity and Venture Capital Laws & Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions for fresh law graduates as well as professionals looking to advance in their careers! Enquire now for details!

Limitation Period for Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The limitation period for appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been a focal point of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. While Section 37 does not explicitly specify a limitation period for filing appeals, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Limitation Act's general provisions apply unless explicitly excluded by the Arbitration Act. Specifically, Article 116 of the Limitation Act suggests a 90-day period for filing appeals to higher courts, subject to possible extensions or condonation of delays under certain conditions.

Key Supreme Court decisions have further shaped the understanding and application of these rules. For instance, in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary Irrigation Department (2008), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Limitation Act applies broadly across proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. More recently, in cases like Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros Engineers & Contractors ("Borse Brothers") (2021) and Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd. (2018), the Court addressed inconsistencies in how different High Courts apply the limitation periods, clarifying that appeals under Section 37 should be lodged within 120 days, mirroring the timeframe set for a Section 34 petition.

The Borse Brothers ruling specifically reevaluated the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 37 appeals, advocating a balanced approach that allows for condoning delays under exceptional circumstances, aligning with the aim for efficient and fair arbitration proceedings. These rulings highlight ongoing debates and the need for clear guidance to ensure consistent application across jurisdictions, emphasizing the judiciary's role in interpreting statutory silences and ambiguities within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Relation Between Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides conditions on when an arbitral award may be set aside; that is, how the award can be challenged. This is related to section 37 because it forms a basis for appeal against the decisions made under the provision of section 34 as well as other rulings determined specifically under the Arbitration Act. The authority of the court under Section 37 is clearly restricted to the same grounds as set out in Section 34, so that appeals do not exceed the limits on judicial interference established for first-tier challenges to awards. In the case of MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited in 2019, the court held that appeals under Section 37 must strictly comply with these grounds, thereby strengthening cautious and minimal judicial intervention in arbitration decisions. This may be an area where caution and prudence are more essential in order not to unsettle the arbitral finding except for substantial reasons in dealing with appeals under Section 37.

Recent Case Laws & Their Impact

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Another v. M/s Sanman Rice Mills & Others (2024)

 The court defined appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as bound by the limits set within Section 34. The nature of proceedings under Section 34 is summarized, wherein it does not involve prolonged legal procedures that are more or less characteristic of normal civil suits. Arguably, therefore, the scope of appeals under Section 37 is also narrow and not aimed to provide broad review of civil appeals. In other words, the appellate court may not comprehensively reexamine the merits of the arbitral tribunal's decision nor reexamine evidence as if conducting a trial de novo. Arbitral awards cannot be challenged unless they contradict any substantive legal provisions or clear stipulations of the Act or the terms stipulated in the contractual agreement.

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (2023)

A three-judge panel determined that the authority conferred by Sections 34 and 37 of the Act does not equate to typical appellate powers. Therefore, courts are cautioned against casually or trivially overturning arbitral decisions. Courts should refrain from altering arbitral findings merely because an alternative interpretation of the facts or contract could exist.

Dyna Technology Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019)

The court ruled that appellate courts should be cautious and defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal. The court also noted that the scope of interference in an appeal under Section 37 is restricted

BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (2018)

Here, the Supreme Court elucidated the retrospective application of amendments to the Act, influencing how modifications to Section 37 are applied to ongoing arbitrations. 

In Conclusion,

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act presents the scope of appeals in arbitration, which has made an emphatic provision that not to allow appeals to undermine arbitrations' efficiency and finality. Appealability is limited to major decisions on interim orders and arbitral awards. It prevents long legal wrangles at the same time leaving the arbitral tribunal to decide its functions alone. This section makes arbitration quick and effective for alternative dispute resolutions, thus strengthening its appeal in solving disputes.

FAQs on Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

1. What orders are appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Orders refusing arbitration under Section 8, granting or refusing interim measures under Section 9, and setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.

2. How does Section 37 interact with Sections 9 and 34 of the Act?

It allows for appeals against specific orders related to interim measures and the setting aside of arbitral awards, linking procedural decisions directly with judicial oversight.

3. What are the limitations on appeals under Section 37?

Appeals are limited to specific orders, and no second appeal is permissible under this section, though appeals to the Supreme Court are allowed.

4. Can the High Court modify the decisions of an arbitral tribunal under Section 37?

While the High Court can review and overturn decisions based on statutory grounds, it generally does not modify arbitral awards but may do so in cases of interim measures under certain conditions.

5. What recent amendments affect appeals under Section 37?

The 2019 amendments expanded the scope of appealable orders and clarified the roles of various courts in the arbitration process, emphasizing the act's goal to reduce unnecessary judicial interference.