25 - Appeals

No. In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce [2011 (8) TMI 1059 - SUPREME COURT], It was held that a right of appeal is not an inherent right. None of the facets of natural justice requires that there should be right of appeal from any decision. The extent of power of an appellate forum and the mode and manner of its exercise can always be provided in the provision that creates such right. 

In the case of M/s Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that it is well known that right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right. It cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly provided for by statute. Being a creature of statute, remedy of appeal must be legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions. It is true that mere omission or error in quoting the provisions would not affect the maintainability of appeal, if otherwise, the order impugned is amenable to appeal.

In the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [2004 (1) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it was held that there is no law that only because no appeal is provided the order would not attain finality.

Right of appeal is not inherent; it exists only when statute creates and defines it, including scope and procedure. The right of appeal is not inherent but is a statutory construct: appellate existence, scope and procedure must be authorized by the creating provision; omissions in citation do not automatically bar an otherwise maintainable appeal; absence of an appellate provision does not prevent an order from becoming final.