Arbitration appeal limits bar section 10F challenge to a Company Law Board order on a section 8 reference.

An order of the Company Law Board passed while deciding a reference under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as an order under the arbitration statute, not as one made in the oppression and mismanagement proceedings. Because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code, section 5 restricts judicial intervention and section 37 makes only specified orders appealable. An order under section 8 is not among those appealable orders, and the appellate remedy under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be imported by attachment. The appeal was therefore held not maintainable for want of appellate jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against an order of the Company Law Board passed while deciding an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 excluded such appellate remedy.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed by the Company Law Board while acting as a judicial authority under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not while adjudicating the oppression and mismanagement petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellate remedy therefore had to be found in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is an exhaustive and self-contained code governing matters covered by Part I. Section 5 of that Act limits judicial intervention except as expressly provided, and section 37 uses the words "and from no others", showing that only the orders specifically enumerated there are appealable. An order under section 8 is not among them. The rule of attachment could not be invoked to import section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, because the referring statute expressly and impliedly excluded such appeal. The comparative provisions in Part II, especially sections 54 and 59, reinforced the conclusion that where the Legislature intended an appeal, it said so expressly.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable. The answer was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme of arbitration excluded an appeal from the Company Law Board's order on a section 8 reference, so the proceeding failed at the threshold for want of appellate jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a self-contained arbitration statute expressly limits appealable orders and excludes judicial intervention except as provided, an appellate remedy under another enactment cannot be imported by the rule of attachment against an order passed by a judicial authority under section 8.

---