“Appeal Is a Creature of Statute, No Right to Challenge Interim Orders under Section 34”: Calcutta High Court Declares UOI Appeal “Not Maintainable” and Dismisses Arbitration Plea
Kiran Raj
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar, dismissed an appeal preferred by the Union of India against an interlocutory order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench recorded, “since appeal is a creature of statute and there is no provision for challenging an interlocutory order passed in connection with an application under Section 34 of the said Act, the present appeal itself is not maintainable.” In disposing of the matter, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue alternative legal remedies, if permissible under law.
The matter arose out of FMAT 43 of 2025 and related applications CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025. The Union of India had filed CAN 1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing FMAT 43 of 2025, which was an appeal against an interlocutory order arising from proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal sought to contest an order passed in the context of a challenge to an arbitral award.
Represented by Mr. Asis Mukherjee and Ms. Debjani Ghosal, the Union of India sought to justify the delay and maintainability of the appeal. The respondents, M/s Venus Engineering Concern Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mr. Tapas Kr. Dey, contested the maintainability, pointing to the absence of any statutory provision allowing for such an appeal.
The High Court noted that the appeal was against an interlocutory order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which does not contemplate an appeal against such interim orders. Section 34 is limited to setting aside arbitral awards and does not permit appeals against procedural or interim decisions made during the pendency of a Section 34 proceeding.
The Division Bench observed that an appeal must be authorized by statute, and in the absence of any provision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appeal interlocutory orders passed during a Section 34 proceeding, such appeals are not maintainable. The Court recorded, “since appeal is a creature of statute and there is no provision for challenging an interlocutory order passed in connection with an application under Section 34 of the said Act, the present appeal itself is not maintainable.”
The Court further observed that keeping the appeal pending would unnecessarily prolong the matter between the parties. It recorded, “instead of prolonging the agony of the parties by keeping the appeal pending, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable.”
No observations were made on the merits of the interlocutory order under challenge.
The Court added that the dismissal of this appeal would not prejudice the appellant’s right to avail themselves of other remedies that may be available under law. The Bench observed, “nothing in this order shall prevent such a challenge, if otherwise maintainable in law.” The Court directed that any fresh challenge, if brought before an appropriate forum, would be decided independently and uninfluenced by this dismissal, stating, “the court taking up the same shall decide it independently in accordance with law without being influenced by the dismissal of the present appeal and the connected applications.”
The Court proceeded to dismiss CAN 1 of 2025, FMAT 43 of 2025, and CAN 2 of 2025. The order reads, “IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 is dismissed.” Further, it was recorded, “FMAT 43 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 are also dismissed as not maintainable.”
The Court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue an alternative challenge stating, “leave, however, is granted to the appellant to prefer a properly constituted challenge before the appropriate court/Bench against the impugned order, as per law.” The Court permitted the appellant to take back the certified copy of the impugned order upon providing a photocopy for record purposes. It recorded, “leave is granted to the appellant to take back the certified copy of the impugned order upon furnishing a photocopy of the same for the records.”
The Bench also ordered that “there will be no order as to costs.”
Advocates appearing for the parties:
For the UOI : Mr. Asis Mukherjee, Ms. Debjani Ghosal
For the Respondent : Mr. Tapas Kr. Dey
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Venus Engineering Concern PVT Limited
Case Number: FMAT 43 of 2025; IA No: CAN 1 of 2025; CAN 2 of 2025
Coram: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar
[Read/Download order]
