Judgment :- 1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by Respondent No.1 in the Arbitration Petition No. 484 of 2012 and prayed as under: (a) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify order dated 29th January, 2013 and discharge the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay in respect of property situate at Chilli to Vanila, Mahesh Residencey, Off. Link Road, M.G. Raod, Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 on such terms and conditions as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper; (a)(i) In the alternative the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to Respondent No.1 to institute and/or continue legal proceedings against the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay being Receiver of the said property viz. Property situated at M/s. Vedansh Hospitalities & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,, Chilli to Vanila, Mahesh Residency, Off. Link Road, M.G. Road, Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 and also permit Respondent No. 1 and/or its servants and agents to attach, take possession and sell the said property including under provisions of SARFEST Act, 2002; (b) for such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; (c) for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a); (d) for costs of the notice of motion. 2. The original Petitioner’s Application, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) has been allowed. The following is the operative order of the Judgment: “4. However, in view of the clear liability of the appellants and respondent No.2, pending the hearing and final disposal of this appeal, the following order is passed:- i). The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as a Receiver of the property forthwith. At this stage, the Court Receiver shall take only formal possession and appoint the appellants and respondent No.2 as his agents without security or royalty. However, the Court Receiver shall forthwith determine the royalty for running the hotel which will become payable with effect from 1.8.2011. This is to enable the appellants and respondent No.2 to raise money to secure the respondent – bank’s claim in the meantime. ii). The appellants and respondent No.2 are restrained from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of or creating any third party rights in, to, upon or in respect of the said property. iii). The Court Receiver shall determine the royalty forthwith and in any event before 1.8.2011. ii). The appellants and respondent No.2 are restrained from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of or creating any third party rights in, to, upon or in respect of the said property. iii). The Court Receiver shall determine the royalty forthwith and in any event before 1.8.2011. In the event of the appellants and respondent No.2 refusing to accept the agency of the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall invite bids from third parties for the purpose of running and managing the hotel. In that event, liberty to the appellants and respondent No.2 to bid for the agency of the Court Receiver. In the event of the appellants or respondent No.2’s bid matching the highest bid, preference will be given to them. iv). The pendency of this appeal shall not restrict the arbitrator from proceeding with arbitration and making and publishing the award. v). The impugned order shall remain stayed and shall be subject to the above order.”. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the original Petitioner has raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of this Notice Motion. Prayers are made by the Appellant to modify order dated 29th January, 2013 and to discharge the Court Receiver. In the alternatively, a prayer is made for grant of leave to institute a legal proceeding, including the attachment; and to take possession and sell the property under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act). 4. The Arbitration Act, 1996 nowhere provides and/or permits a court under section 34 to review and/ or modify its own order on merit. The submission of the Applicant/ Respondent No.1 that the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) permits so and the same cannot be ignored in such a situation and, therefore, the Applicant requested to modify the final Judgment. Under the Arbitration Act it is specifically mentioned that the provisions of the C.P..C. and Evidence Act are not applicable. Even otherwise, considering the scheme and purpose of Arbitration Act and as there is no specific provision, permitting the parties/aggrieved party to apply for such modification and review of the reasoned order passed after hearing both the parties. 5. Under the Arbitration Act it is specifically mentioned that the provisions of the C.P..C. and Evidence Act are not applicable. Even otherwise, considering the scheme and purpose of Arbitration Act and as there is no specific provision, permitting the parties/aggrieved party to apply for such modification and review of the reasoned order passed after hearing both the parties. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 12 , has dealt with the provisions Section XL and the power of court to grant leave, if a case is made out. The law so settled need no discussion. In the present case the issue is whether such Motion for modification of the order, including the grant of leave so prayed to initiate proceedings under the other Act, which is nothing but a prayer to modify the Award. The order so passed and reproduced above clearly intended that the Receiver already appointed should continue till the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. It is necessary to note that the liberty is also granted to the parties to apply for appropriate orders and also for settlement. 6. Even otherwise, the prayer so made in this Motion is for substantial modification of the reasoned Judgment passed under 34 of the Arbitration Act. This is not permissible as not intended at all, even by the legislature. Less intervention by the Court is the foundation for this also. The arbitrator under section 33 may modify or correct the Award as provided but not by the Court for want of specific provision. There is no question of invoking inherent power of Court. The scope of Court under section 34 of the Arbitration can not be extended in such situation. The remedy is elsewhere, including section 37 of the Arbitration Act. 7. No case is made out for review under Order XLVII (Review) of C.P.C., as recorded, even by invoking “the doctrine of procedural review”, apart from “review on merits”. Both are of no assistance to the applicant. No case for review or modification of the Judgment even otherwise in view of the prayers itself. The Notice of Motion for modification on merit as filed is not maintainable against the Judgment passed by the Court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Both are of no assistance to the applicant. No case for review or modification of the Judgment even otherwise in view of the prayers itself. The Notice of Motion for modification on merit as filed is not maintainable against the Judgment passed by the Court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The order of remand, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, at the instance of the Applicant (Respondent No.1), cannot be interfered with of which the continuation order of appointment of the Receiver was one of the foundation. 8. Resultantly, the Notice Motion is dismissed with liberty. No cost.