Arbitration appeal limits: no further appeal lies from a section 8 order where the statute exhaustively lists appealable orders.

An appeal does not lie from an order of the Company Law Board passed on an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because the Act is a self-contained and exhaustive code for matters covered by Part I. Section 5 limits judicial intervention to what the Act permits, and section 37 provides an exhaustive list of appealable orders, with the words "and from no others" excluding any further appeal. The Court also held that an attachment rule cannot create a right of appeal where the governing statute expressly or impliedly excludes it.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay against an order of the Company Law Board passed on an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The right of appeal was held to be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because the impugned order was made by the Company Law Board while acting as a judicial authority under that Act. The Act was treated as a complete and exhaustive code for matters covered by Part I, and section 5 was read as restricting judicial intervention except where the Act itself permits it. Section 37 was construed as an exhaustive list of appealable orders, and the words "and from no others" were treated as excluding appeals from orders under section 8. The Court also held that the rule of attachment could not confer an appeal where the referring statute impliedly or expressly excludes it.

Conclusion: No appeal lay against the order passed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the challenge to maintainability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute governing arbitration is a self-contained code and expressly enumerates the appealable orders, the exclusionary language confines appellate remedy to those orders alone and excludes any further appeal not so provided.

---