Arbitration appeal procedure excludes cross-objections under civil procedure, with the contrary view left for larger Bench reconsideration.

In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as not applying proprio vigore, because the Act was viewed as a complete code and Section 5 restricts judicial intervention to what the Act expressly permits. The absence of any provision comparable to Section 41(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as significant, and a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 was stated to be impermissible in principle. The earlier decision in ITI Ltd. was noted as binding, and the contrary view was said to require reconsideration by a larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply so as to permit a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22.

Analysis: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as a complete code governing arbitral proceedings and appellate remedies. Section 5 was read as imposing a clear restriction on judicial intervention, allowing intervention only where the Act so provides. The absence of any provision analogous to Section 41(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as significant. On that reasoning, the Code of Civil Procedure was held not to apply proprio vigore to proceedings under Section 37, and the maintainability of a cross-objection was rejected in principle. At the same time, the earlier decision in ITI Ltd. was noted as binding, and the contrary view was stated to require reconsideration by a larger Bench.

Conclusion: A cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 was held to be impermissible in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but the issue was referred for reconsideration by a larger Bench.

---