<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (2) TMI 1543 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310138</link>
    <description>The statutory appeal scheme for commercial disputes was treated as self-contained, and the right of appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act was held to be purely statutory. The term &quot;judgment&quot; in Section 13(1) was read as referring to a decree, while the proviso limited appeals against orders to those specifically covered by Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Act&#039;s overriding effect excluded recourse to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 to enlarge appellate rights where Section 13 did not itself provide an appeal. The result was that the interlocutory order was not appealable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Oct 2023 11:06:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1543 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310138</link>
      <description>The statutory appeal scheme for commercial disputes was treated as self-contained, and the right of appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act was held to be purely statutory. The term &quot;judgment&quot; in Section 13(1) was read as referring to a decree, while the proviso limited appeals against orders to those specifically covered by Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Act&#039;s overriding effect excluded recourse to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 to enlarge appellate rights where Section 13 did not itself provide an appeal. The result was that the interlocutory order was not appealable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>