Limited scope of arbitration appeals bars challenge to refusal of leave to amend a Section 34 application.

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits an appeal only from the orders expressly listed in that provision, reflecting the Act's policy of minimal judicial intervention. An order refusing leave to amend an application under Section 34 is not one of the appealable orders enumerated in Section 37. The Court therefore held that no appeal lay against the interlocutory refusal and that the appeal was not maintainable, leaving the party to any other remedy available in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order refusing leave to amend an application under Section 34 of that Act.

Analysis: The appellate provision in Section 37(1) is confined to the orders specifically enumerated therein and excludes all others. Section 5 reinforces the legislative intent of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral matters. An order refusing leave to amend an application under Section 34 does not fall within the appealable categories contemplated by Section 37.

Conclusion: No appeal lies against the order refusing leave to amend the Section 34 application, and the appeal is not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the interlocutory order could not be entertained in appeal, leaving the appellant to pursue any other remedy available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable only against the orders expressly specified in that provision, and an order refusing leave to amend a Section 34 application is outside its scope.

---