Order Under Sec 17(2) Enforcing Emergency Arbitrator's Award Not Appealable Under Section 37: Supreme Court

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• Arbitration proceedings were initiated by Amazon.
• It had filed an application requesting emergency interim relief under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, asking for injunction relief.
• Mr. V.K. Rajah was appointed as the Emergency Arbitrator to solve this case.
• After hearing both the parties, he passed an "interim award".
• After that, Amazonfiled a petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, seeking to enforce the award/order of an Emergency Arbitrator.

RELATED PROVISIONS

• Section 17(2) defines that, subject to any orders that have been passed in an appeal under Section 37, and any order issued by the Arbitral Tribunal under this Section must be deemed to be an order of the court for all purposes.
• It must also be made enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same way as if it were an order of the court.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

• Two issues were raised before the Court in the appeal:

1. Whether an "award" which is delivered by an Emergency Arbitrator under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ["SIAC Rules"] can be considered to be an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act?
2. Whether an order that is passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act in enforcement of the award of an Emergency Arbitrator by a learned Single Judge of the High Court can be considered appealable?

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

• The Bench, while answering the first issue, held that full party autonomy is provided to the Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as "awards", and therefore such orders can be referred.
• To answer the second question, the Bench noticed that Section 37 is a complete code so far as appeals from orders and awards made under the Arbitration Act are concerned. Therefore, it noted that even after the amendment, Section 37 continued to provide appeals only from an order granting or refusing to grant any interim measure under Section 17. Further it said that no corresponding amendment was made to Section 37(2)(b) to include within its scope the amended Section 17.
• While disposing the appeal filed byAmazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, the Division Bench, comprisingJustice RF Nariman and BR Gavai,held that in so far as appeals from orders and awards made under the Arbitration Act are concerned, Section 37 is considered to be a complete code.
• It held that an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order, which is made under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is not appealable under Section 37 of the Act.
• The Single Bench of the High Court had held that an Emergency Arbitrator's award should be considered as an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act.
• Later, the Division Bench stayed this order of Single Bench and this stay order was further assailed before the Apex Court.
• The Division Bench also held thatan appeal against an order under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act is maintainable under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SAID ORDER?