Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent lay against the judgment of a Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 39(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, notwithstanding the bar in Section 39(2).
Analysis: Section 39 of the Arbitration Act was construed as a complete code governing appeals in arbitration matters. The expression "second appeal" in Section 39(2) was held to mean any further appeal from an order passed in appeal under Section 39(1), and not merely an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The statutory scheme, which limited appeals to the specified orders and omitted any saving of other appellate remedies, was held to override the Letters Patent right of appeal. The earlier procedural law and the saving provisions in the Civil Procedure Code were treated as having been deliberately departed from in the Arbitration Act.
Conclusion: An appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was not maintainable against an appellate order passed by a Single Judge under Section 39(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates and limits the right of appeal in mandatory terms, the statutory restriction excludes any additional intra-court appellate remedy unless the statute expressly preserves it.