2. Short point of law that arises for our consideration in the present matter is “Whether the High Court, while exercising statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against rejection of an application under Section 9 can by consent of the parties, remit the appellate proceedings to the subsequently constituted Arbitral Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to treat such proceedings as an application under Section 17 of the Act?”

9. The direction contained in the impugned order remitting the proceedings pending before the High Court to the Arbitral Tribunal and requiring them to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act cannot, however, be sustained. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested exclusively in the “Court” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9. Consequently, the effect of the impugned direction would be to require the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17. The nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.