Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.
|
Head Note
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 50 , Section 49 , Section 37
Order of Court for enforcement of award - Order not appeable under Section 50 of Arbitration Act - Arbitration Act is a special Act - LPA would not lie by applying general law procedure - Held - (i) Where a special Act sets out a self-contained code applicability of general law procedure would be impliedly excluded. (ii) Where special Act sets out a self-contained code, applicability of general law procedure would be impliedly excluded.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 104
Letters Patent Appeal - If the pronouncement of the single judge qualifies as a "judgment", in the absence of any bar created by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication, it would be subject to appeal under the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of the High Court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 104
Maintainability of Appeal, particularly L.P.A. - Following law culled out from various decisions :-
1. Normally, once an appeal reaches the High Court it has to be determined according to the rules of practice and procedure of the High Court and in accordance with the provisions of the charter under which the High Court is constituted and which confers on it power in respect to the method and manner of exercising that power.
2. When a statute merely directs that an appeal shall lie to a court already established then that appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that court.
3. The High Court derives its intra-court appeal jurisdiction under the charter by which it was established and its powers under the Letters Patent were recognized and saved by section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and finally, by Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, therefore, cannot be divested of its Letters Patent jurisdiction unless provided for expressly or by necessary intendment by some special statute.
4. If the pronouncement of the single judge qualifies as a "judgment", in the absence of any bar created by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication, it would be subject to appeal under the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of the High Court.
5. Since section 104(1) CPC specifically saves the letters patent appeal it could only be excluded by an express mention in section 104(2). In the absence of any express mention in section 104(2), the maintainability of a letters patent appeal is saved by virtue of section 104(1).
6. Limitation of a right of appeal in absence of any provision in a statute cannot be readily inferred. The appellate jurisdiction of a superior court cannot be taken as excluded simply because a subordinate court exercises its special jurisdiction.
7. The exception to the aforementioned rule is where the special Act sets out a self-contained code and in that event the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded. The express provision need not refer to or use the word "letters patent" but if on a reading of the provision it is clear that all further appeals are barred then even a letters patent appeal would be barred.
Topic(s)-Letters Patent Appeal