Interim Order Directing Release Of Award Amount Not Appealable Under S. 37, Arbitration Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently observed that an order directing the release of a deposited award amount during the pendency of a Section 34 challenge cannot be appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The bench of Justice Robin Phukan held an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an interim order directing the release of the award amount to a landowner to be non-maintainable.

The court held, “The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the appellant herein cannot typically challenge the order releasing the deposited amount directly under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the same is not one of the enumerated appealable orders.”

Rajib Boruah's land was acquired by NHAI and he was paid compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, he approached the Commissioner, who was acting as the statutory arbitrator, seeking enhanced compensation.

The Arbitrator awarded him an additional Rs. 73,27,009. Still dissatisfied, Boruah filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Civil Judge, Kamrup, seeking to set aside the award and claiming further enhancement of compensation.

While the Section 34 petition was pending, Boruah filed a separate application seeking release of the awarded sum of Rs. 73,27,009, which NHAI opposed. On March 12, 2026, the Civil Judge directed NHAI to release the amount within 15 days as an interim measure while the Section 34 proceedings remained pending. Aggrieved, NHAI filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act.

NHAI argued that Section 34 does not empower a court to grant interim relief of this nature. According to it, a court hearing a Section 34 petition can only set aside an arbitral award or refuse to do so. It further contended that directing release of the entire awarded amount through an interim order effectively amounted to a final order, which was impermissible in law.

On the other hand, Boruah argued that the appeal itself was not maintainable because Section 37 permits appeals only against specified categories of orders. He further submitted that NHAI had never challenged the arbitral award itself and therefore could not object to the release of the unchallenged awarded amount.

The court observed that Section 37 contains an exhaustive list of appealable orders and provides only a limited appellate remedy to examine whether the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 acted within the confines of that provision.

It further observed that new or additional grounds can be raised only if they fall within the scope of Section 34 and do not amount to a backdoor review of the arbitral award on its merits.

The court held that the impugned order merely directed the release of the deposited amount and did not fall within any of the categories of appealable orders under Section 37. It observed that the order was only interlocutory or procedural in nature, having been passed while the Section 34 proceedings were still pending. It was neither a final decision on the challenge to the arbitral award nor an order granting or refusing interim relief under Section 9.

The court further observed that even if the release order was erroneous, that by itself would not make it appealable under Section 37.

It noted that NHAI's possible remedies were to seek a stay, recall, or modification of the release order before the same court in the pending Section 34 proceedings or to invoke the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction by filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.

For Appellant: C. Boruah

For Respondent: P K Roychoudhury, S Ahmed, N G Kundu