9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent. 2. Facts in brief are that on 1.8.1994 parties entered into an agreement by which the appellant agreed to supply 108 Metric Tonnes of Menthol Crystals to the respondent during the period January, 1995 to June, 1996. The appellant could not supply the stipulated quantity of goods within time, Therefore, sought extension of time from the respondent. A notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant in repudiator breach on the appellant's obligation under the contract for supply of remaining quantity of good. On 18.12.1995 claim was filed by the respondent before the International General Produce Association, London, U.K. (hereinafter referred to as "the IGPA"), the Arbitral body nominated by the respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant's furnishing security to the extent of ₹ 4.24 Crores. 3. The main objection raised by the appellant about the maintainability of the execution proceedings has been that the Awards are covered by the New York Convention and whether the Foreign Awards Recognition & Enforcement Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "FARE Act") or the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the A&C Act") applied, the awards being foreign awards are not liable to be executed proprio vigore. The awards under the two Acts had to be sued upon, when the objection, set out in Section 7 of the FARE Act, 1961 or under Section 48 of the A&C Act could be raised by the party against whom awards have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... award in question. Section 50 of the A&C Act enumerates the orders against which appeal is provided. The impugned order is not covered by Section 50, Therefore, no appeal is maintainable against the said order under Section 50 of the A&C Act. Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act does not confer any right of appeal. It provides only for a forum of appeal. Appeal is a creature of statute and there is no inherent right of appeal. As such the appeal is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. v. Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. 1996IIIAD(Delhi)242 in support of this proposition. It has further been contended by him that no appeal lies from an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court:- "Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat raises a preliminary objection and states that the impugned order can be validly made a subject matter of appeal in the High Court under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act or Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act. We find substance in this preliminary objection and Mr. Venugopal further states that he will not object to the maintainability of the appeal if it is so filed. As the petitioner has moved this Court in Special Leave Petition directly against the order of learned Single Judge he may file the requisite appeal against the aforesaid judgment, if so advised, within 15 days from today and the same if so filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al would not lie under Section 50 of the Act. The question, which was raised by the appellant before learned Single Judge in EA. 346/98 was about the very maintainability of execution petition. The objection is such, which if allowed, would have the effect of terminating the main proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent is perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. case (supra) that Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act does not confer any right of appeal but provides only for a forum of appeal. As such appeal would not lie under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act unless there is any other provision under which it with be permissible for the appellant to file appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be judgment. It was held that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be "judgments", which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. While laying down the guide lines to determine whether or not an order passed by the trial Judge would be 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, instances have been given therein, which are illustrative and dot exhaustive. Tests laid down by Sir Arnol White, C.J. in T.V. Tulzaram Row v. M.K.R.V. Allagappachettiar I.L.R. (1912) Mad 1, were adopted and approved, which inter alias also laid down that if there is a possibility of the defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
