An order refusing to recall the termination of arbitral proceedings is challengeable only under Section 14(2).

The appellant (claimant) had its arbitration proceedings terminated by a Sole Arbitrator on November 1, 2019, due to non-cooperation in filing a statement of claim

The appellant filed an application to recall the termination order, which the Arbitrator dismissed on January 14, 2023

Challenging this refusal to recall, the appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed on April 26, 2023

The appellant then preferred the present appeal under Section 37

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Section 37 appeal and the underlying Section 34 petition

1. Whether an appeal under Section 37 is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge passed on a petition facially filed under Section 34

2. Whether an order of an Arbitral Tribunal refusing to recall an order of termination of proceedings under Section 25 is challengeable under Section 34 or Section 14(2) of the 1996 Act

3. Whether the declaration of law in Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder Singh applies retrospectively to pending proceedings

The court primarily relied on Section 14(2) regarding the termination of an arbitrator's mandate

Section 34 regarding the setting aside of arbitral awards

The court applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder Singh, which held that while an order terminating proceedings under Section 25(a) is an "award" challengeable under Section 34, a subsequent order refusing to recall such termination must be challenged under Section 14(2)

The court applied the doctrine of retrospective operation of judicial precedents as discussed in DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora, affirming that a declaration of law by a higher court applies to all pending matters unless expressly made prospective

The Court first rejected the respondent's plea to "treat" the Single Judge’s order as one under Section 14 to bar the appeal, holding that since it was passed under Section 34, a Section 37 appeal is technically maintainable to test its validity

On the merits of maintainability, the Court found that the order being challenged before the Single Judge was explicitly an order refusing to recall termination, not the termination itself. Following Harshbir Singh Pannu, the Court reasoned that such an order is only amenable to challenge under Section 14(2)

The Court dismissed the appellant’s argument on "vested rights" and "prospective overruling," clarifying that Article 141 mandates that judicial declarations of law are retrospective by default. Since the Supreme Court did not expressly make Harshbir Singh Pannu prospective, the Section 34 petition was filed under an incorrect provision of law

The Court quashed the Single Judge's order dated April 26, 2023, and dismissed the original petition as non-maintainable. The Court granted the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate forum under Section 14(2) of the 1996 Act