The petitioners appeal before the division bench was dismissed as number maintainable.
The majority judgment went into the history of the matter and pointed out that under the Civil Procedure Codes of 1877 and 1882 there was a divergence of opinion among the different High Courts on the point whether the finality attached to orders passed under section 588 companyresponding to section 104 of the present Code precluded any further appeals, including a letters patent appeal.
The present SLPs are filed challenging both the orders passed by the single judge and the division bench.
The petitioner in SLP C Nos.13626 13629 of 2010 is the respondent in SLP C No.13625 of 2010 and SLP C No.11945 of 2010 which have been held to be unrelated to the batch.
The appeal was admitted but a preliminary objection was raised in regard to its maintainability in view of section 50 of the 1996 Act.
Against the orders of the single judge, the petitioners in these SLPs filed appeals before the division bench of the High Court.
The division bench by order dated May 8, 2007 rejected the preliminary objection holding that the appeal was maintainable.
An appeal against the order came to the High Court and it was dismissed by a single judge.
P.S. Sathappan is actually an authority on the interplay of section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Letters Patent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Ltd. v. Nissai ASB PTE Ltd., 1999 2 SCC 541, the same question was earlier referred to a bench of three judges of this Court.
The question of maintainability of the appeal was examined by a full bench of the High Court and the intra court appeal to the division bench was held to be number maintainable in view of the provisions of section 104 2 of CPC.
All the appeals were taken together and dismissed by a companymon order as number maintainable.
In this case, against an order passed by a single judge of the High Court, by which he granted relief for enforcement of a foreign award, an appeal was preferred before the division bench of the High Court.
Civil Appeal No.36 of 2010 companying from the Calcutta High Court is opposite of the aforementioned two SLPs companying from the Delhi High Court.
In SLP C Nos.22318 22321 of 2010 a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by defendant number.3 5 referring the parties to arbitration in terms of section 45 of the 1996 Act.
Against the order passed by a single judge of the High Court for enforcement of two foreign awards against it, the petitioner in SLP C Nos.13626 13629 of 2010, first preferred an appeal before the division bench of the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed by the division bench as number maintainable.
A Constitution Bench of this Court, however, reversed the decision of the full bench of the High Court and by a majority of 32 held that the letters patent appeal was perfectly maintainable.
An application for setting aside the companyrt auction sale was dismissed by the execution companyrt.
The petitioners have companye before this Court against the order passed by the division bench only, on the question of maintainability of their appeals.
The SLP C Nos.
22318 22321 of 2010 are filed under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging orders passed by both the division bench and the single judge of the High Court.
Against the order of the single judge, a letters patent appeal was filed.
AFTAB ALAM, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.31068 of 2009 and SLP C No.4648 of 2010.
This Court did number accept the submission.
Hence, an appeal against such an order would be one under section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code and a further appeal would, therefore, be barred under sub section 2 of section 104.
