Statutory bar on further intra-court appeal applies where a Single Judge decides an appeal in appellate jurisdiction.

Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 preserves appeals subject to the same conditions as appeals from orders in the court's ordinary jurisdiction, and that wording regulates procedure rather than extinguishing the substantive right of appeal. However, section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 creates an express bar on any further appeal where a Single Judge has heard and decided an appeal from an original or appellate order, and this bar extends to appeals under other laws in force. Because the Single Judge had decided the matter in appellate jurisdiction under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the further intra-court appeal was held barred and dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Special Appeal lay against the order of a Single Judge passed in appellate jurisdiction under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, in view of section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 and section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 preserves an appeal only in the manner and subject to the same conditions as appeals from orders in the Court's ordinary jurisdiction, and the earlier authorities relied upon by the appellant explained that those words regulate procedure and do not by themselves extinguish the substantive right of appeal. However, the later statutory amendment in section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 introduced an express bar on any further appeal where a Single Judge has heard and decided an appeal from an original or appellate order, and the expression covers appeals under any other law in force. The impugned order was passed by the Single Judge in appellate exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, so the further intra-court appeal was hit by the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The Special Appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---