Arbitrator's control over party-impleadment objections makes a premature challenge not maintainable in arbitration.

An objection to impleadment or deletion of a party in arbitral proceedings was held to fall within the arbitrator's domain, particularly where the tribunal had indicated that it could deal with the claim and the issue had not yet been finally addressed after pleadings. A challenge to such an interim position was therefore premature and the appeal was not maintainable. The court also noted that any grievance could be raised after the award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and accepted exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings for the purpose of Section 29A(4).

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's objection to impleadment or deletion as a necessary party was required to be decided by the arbitrator and, therefore, whether the appeal against the impugned order was maintainable.

Analysis: The dispute raised by the appellant concerned the propriety of its being continued as a party in the arbitral proceedings. The impugned order recorded that the question could be decided only after completion of pleadings, and the arbitral tribunal had already indicated that it had jurisdiction to deal with the claim. In such circumstances, the objection fell within the domain of the arbitrator under the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the challenge was premature. The Court also noted the statutory framework under Section 16(6), under which any grievance can be agitated after the award, and accepted the request to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the present proceedings for the purpose of Section 29A(4).

Conclusion: The objection was to be decided by the arbitrator and the appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was rejected.

---