Recently, the Bombay High Court once again clarified an
ever-persisting question concerning the scope of judicial
intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the
"Act"). Although the Act has been in
force since 1996, it continues to undergo judicial interpretation
to clarify areas left unaddressed in the statutory text. One such
area pertains to the maintainability of challenges against certain
non-appealable orders of the arbitral tribunal, such as those
passed under Sections 16 or 38 of the Act.
In the present case, the Court was dealing with an order passed
under Section 38(2), whereby the arbitral tribunal had terminated
the claimant's proceedings owing to non-payment of arbitral
fees. In the past various courts on multiple occasions have stated
and reiterated that orders of such nature are not independently
appealable and that objections to such orders may be raised only at
the stage of a challenge under Section 34 once the final award
