JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 31068 of 2009 and SLP (C) No. 4648 of 2010.

2. The common question that arises for consideration by the Court in this batch of cases is whether an order, though not appeal able under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "1996 Act"), would nevertheless be subject to appeal under the relevant provision of the Letters Patent of the High Court. In other words even though the Arbitration Act does not envisage or permit an appeal from the order, the party aggrieved by it can still have his way, by-passing the Act and taking recourse to another jurisdiction.

3. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, senior advocate, however, who led the arguments on behalf of the Appellants, would like to frame the question differently. He would ask whether there is any provision in the 1996 Act that can be said to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under its Letters Patent either expressly or even impliedly. He would say that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent is an independent jurisdiction and as long as the order qualifies for an appeal under the Letters Patent an appeal from that order would be, undoubtedly, maintainable before the High Court.

4. A correct answer to both the questions would depend upon how the 1996 Act is to be viewed. Do the provisions of the 1996 Act constitute a complete code for matters arising out of an arbitration proceeding, the making of the award and the enforcement of the award? If the answer to the question is in the affirmative then, obviously, all other jurisdictions, including the letters patent jurisdiction of the High Court would stand excluded but in case the answer is in the negative then, of course, the contention of Mr. Sundaram must be accepted.

5. The batch presently before the Court originally consisted of nine cases, out of which SLP (C) No. 16908 of 2010 ended in compromise between the parties. Of the remaining eight cases, SLP (C) No. 13625 of 2010 and SLP (C) No. 11945 of 2010 are unrelated and have been wrongly put in this batch. These two SL Ps are filed against a common judgment passed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court insofar as though allowing the Petitioners' application for enforcement of two foreign awards, the High Court declined to pass any order for payment of interest on the awarded amounts payable to the Petitioners. These two cases are, therefore, directed to be de-tagged and listed separately. This leaves behind six cases. At the conclusion of hearing, one of the cases, being SLP (C) No. 31067 of 2009 was directed, on the prayer made by the counsel for the Petitioner, to be de-linked from the batch and to be listed separately. It, however, appears that the direction was wrongly obtained since that case and another case in the batch, SLP (C) No. 31068 of 2009 arise from a common order and SLP (C) No. 31067 of 2009 would also be fully governed by this judgment. Be that as it may, the direction for de-linking is already made and, hence, that case will be separately listed and dealt with in due course. Of the remaining five cases four come from the Delhi High Court and one from the Calcutta High Court. In SLP (C) No. 4648 of 2010 and SLP (C) No. 31068 of 2010, the applications filed by the respective Respondents in these cases, for enforcement of the foreign award in their favour were allowed by orders passed by a single judge of the High Court. Against the orders of the single judge, the Petitioners in these SL Ps filed appeals before the division bench of the High Court. All the appeals were taken together and dismissed by a common order as not maintainable. The Petitioners have come before this Court against the order passed by the division bench only, on the question of maintainability of their appeals. Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2010 coming from the Calcutta High Court is opposite of the aforementioned two SL Ps coming from the Delhi High Court. In this case, against an order passed by a s