https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293628 An appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing a Section 34 application where binding precedent governs the scope of appealability. The Court examined the interaction between Sections 34 and 37 of the Act and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, noting the argument that a limitation-related order does not decide the award on merits, but also the contrary view that refusal to condone delay effectively bars challenge to the award. Applying Supreme Court precedent, it concluded that such an order does not fall within the statutory ambit of Section 37, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Feb 2021 18:09:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293628 An appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing a Section 34 application where binding precedent governs the scope of appealability. The Court examined the interaction between Sections 34 and 37 of the Act and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, noting the argument that a limitation-related order does not decide the award on merits, but also the contrary view that refusal to condone delay effectively bars challenge to the award. Applying Supreme Court precedent, it concluded that such an order does not fall within the statutory ambit of Section 37, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293628