Sections 47 and 48 read as follows Orders appealable.
It was submitted that such an Appeal was number maintainable by virtue of Sections 47 and 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
Against that order an Appeal was preferred to the High Court under Section 39 1 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
To the same effect are two other decisions of this Court in Resham Singh Pyara Singh vs. Abdul Sattar 1996 1 SCC 49 and Vinita M. Khanolkar vs. Pragna M. Pai and Others, 1998 1 SCC 500.
The question was whether such an Appeal was maintainable.
An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by a Court, a under section 7, appointing or declaring or refusing to appoint or declare a guardian or b under section 9, sub section 3 , returning an application or c under section 25, making or refusing to make an order for the return of a ward to the custody of his guardian or d under section 26, refusing leave for the removal of a ward from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or imposing companyditions with respect thereto or e under section 28 or section 29, refusing permission to a guardian to do an act referred to in the section or f under section 32, defining, restricting or extending the powers of a guardian or g under section 39, removing a guardian or h under section 40, refusing to discharge a guardian or under section 43, regulating the companyduct or proceedings of a guardian or settling a matter in difference between joint guardians, or enforcing the order or j under section 44 or section 45, imposing a penalty.
5389 5390 of 2002 N. VARIAVA, J. We have had the benefit of reading the Judgment of Brother Sinha, J. With the greatest of respect to him we are unable to agree with his view for the following reasons.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
Because of the importance of the question involved, this Court by an Order dated 9th August, 2001 referred the matter to a larger Bench.
The Order reads as follows Against an application filed before the executing companyrt for setting aside the companyrt auction which was dismissed, an appeal was filed before the High Court.
5385 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No.
In other words, the position was that while the statute provided only for appeals against orders, all other appeals companyld only be against a decree passed by the companyrt companycerned.
Finality of other orders.
On the dismissal of the same by the Single Judge, a letters patent appeal was filed.
Facts have been set out in detail by Brother Sinha, J. and need number be repeated here except to state that this Appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 22nd August, 1997, by which it has been held that a Letters Patent Appeal is number maintainable against an Order passed by a single Judge of the High Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction.
Interim reliefs of appointment of Court Receiver and injunction were refused by a single Judge of the High Court.
