(1) IN this case, the High court has taken the view that no further appeal would lie under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against an order under Section 45 refusing to refer parties to arbitration as passed by learned Single Judge. Therefore, the view seems to be that unless the Act expressly provides for appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge exercising powers under Section 45 of the Act, no appeal would lie to the division bench. Unfortunately, Section 10 of the Delhi High court Act, 1966 and clause 10 of the Letters Patent which apply to the High court of Delhi have not been noticed therein. However, there is a two-Judge bench decision of this court in State of W.B. v. Gourangalal Chatterjee which supports the view taken by the High court in the impugned judgment. In State of W.B. v. Gourangalal Chatterjee this court relied upon an earlier decision of the court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. The said decision was rendered with reference to the appealability of an order passed by the High court in an appeal from the order of the subordinate court and not from the order passed by a