1997 (1) TMI 542 - SC - Indian Laws

Limitations on Letters Patent Appeal clarified by Supreme Court, emphasizing statutory restrictions

New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. Versus Orissa State Finance Corporation & Ors.

New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. Versus Orissa State Finance Corporation & Ors. - 1997 AIR 978, 1997 (1) SCR 395, 1997 (3) SCC 462, 1997 (1) JT 712, 1997 (1) ... Issues:1. Maintainability of appeal against an order of injunction passed by a learned single Judge.2. Interpretation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent regarding appeals to the Division Bench.3. Applicability of Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to appeals.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute where the appellant sought a declaration that actions taken by the respondents were illegal and requested a permanent injunction to maintain possession of a hotel. Initially, the trial court granted status quo, but the single Judge vacated this order. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the order was appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. However, the Division Bench held that the appeals were not maintainable.2. The appellant argued that the order granting status quo was a judgment within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore appealable. The Court referred to previous judgments and highlighted that the right of appeal is statutory. It was established that against an interlocutory order like an interim injunction, an appeal is provided under Order XLIII Rule 1. However, Section 104(2) specifically prohibits a Second Appeal against such orders. The Court cited precedents to support the view that a Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against an appellate order of a single Judge.3. The Court analyzed Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, which outlines the scenarios where an appeal would lie to the Division Bench. It was clarified that an appeal would not lie from a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that an appeal should be allowed based on previous interpretations, emphasizing that the order in question did not fall under the scope of appealable judgments under Clause 10. The Court concluded that the right of appeal is limited by statutory provisions, and since Section 104(2) prohibits second appeals, the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in this case.In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Division Bench's decision that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable against the order of the single Judge. The judgment clarified the limitations on appeals against interlocutory orders and the interpretation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent regarding appeals to the Division Bench, emphasizing the statutory restrictions on the right of appeal.