Hindustan Vidyut Products Limited Vs. Delhi Power Company Limited
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Arbitrator made an Award dated 22nd December, 2005 of an amount of ` 20,26,000/- in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The Respondent filed an application Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of the Award numbered as OMP No. 114 of 2006 and the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi by his order dated 25th July, 2007 set aside the Award. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed FAO (S) Nos. 337-338 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court instead of deciding the appeals of the Appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge set aside the Award holding that the appeals of the Appellant were not maintainable as it was for the Appellant to have ensured the presence of the parties likely to be affected in the proceedings in the appeals. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is only the Respondent who had filed the application for setting aside the Award Under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Single Judge and no other party had applied for setting aside the Award before the learned Single Judge. As the learned Single Judge has set aside the Award at the instance of only the Respondent before us, in the appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Respondent was the only necessary party and it was not at all necessary for the Appellant to have impleaded other parties in the appeals even though they may be affected by the Award.
1[ds]Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is only the Respondent who had filed the application for setting aside the Award Under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Single Judge and no other party had applied for setting aside the Award before the learned Single Judge. As the learned Single Judge has set aside the Award at the instance of only the Respondent before us, in the appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Respondent was the only necessary party and it was not at all necessary for the Appellant to have impleaded other parties in the appeals even though they may be affected by the Award.
### Instruction:
First, predict whether the appeal in case proceeding will be accepted (1) or not (0), and then explain the decision by identifying crucial sentences from the document.

### Input:
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Arbitrator made an Award dated 22nd December, 2005 of an amount of ` 20,26,000/- in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The Respondent filed an application Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of the Award numbered as OMP No. 114 of 2006 and the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi by his order dated 25th July, 2007 set aside the Award. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed FAO (S) Nos. 337-338 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court instead of deciding the appeals of the Appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge set aside the Award holding that the appeals of the Appellant were not maintainable as it was for the Appellant to have ensured the presence of the parties likely to be affected in the proceedings in the appeals. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is only the Respondent who had filed the application for setting aside the Award Under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Single Judge and no other party had applied for setting aside the Award before the learned Single Judge. As the learned Single Judge has set aside the Award at the instance of only the Respondent before us, in the appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Respondent was the only necessary party and it was not at all necessary for the Appellant to have impleaded other parties in the appeals even though they may be affected by the Award.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is only the Respondent who had filed the application for setting aside the Award Under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Single Judge and no other party had applied for setting aside the Award before the learned Single Judge. As the learned Single Judge has set aside the Award at the instance of only the Respondent before us, in the appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Respondent was the only necessary party and it was not at all necessary for the Appellant to have impleaded other parties in the appeals even though they may be affected by the Award.
