GIRISH GODBOLE, J.

1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course.

2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed an interim order which reads thus:

“Stand over to 14th June, 2011.

1. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the respondent no.1 has to develop its property in Bandra-Kurla complex, Mumbai and that in the process of re- development they are going to get 1,50,000 sq. feet of built—up-area property which the respondent no.1 does not propose to alienate or dispose of said built-up property and that the till next date of hearing, the respondent no.1 shall also not encumber 75,000 sq. feet built-up-area out of the said 1,50,000 sq. ft of built-up-area.

The question of maintainability of the Appeal is kept open.”

The question of maintainability of the Appeal was kept open.

3. Thereafter, even the first claimants filed Appeal (Lodg.) No. 356 of 2011, subsequently numbered as Appeal No. 345 of 2011. Both the Appeals were heard by us on 14/6/2011 for admission. In Appeal No. 456 of 2011, following order was passed on 14/6/2011:

“PC: Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he does not press the preliminary objection which was raised about the maintainability of the appeal at the previous hearing. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas further states that respondent No.1 has filed cross appeal against the said order.

2 Appeal is admitted. But the question of maintainability of the appeal is still kept open.

3 The statement made by Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No.1 on 6th May, 2011 shall continue to operate till the final

disposal of this appeal.

4 Leave to amend in terms of the draft amendment handed in today. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today.

5 This appeal shall be heard on 19th July, 2011. High on Board. ”

In Appeal No. 345 of 2011 the following order was passed on the same date:

“PC:

Not on board. Mentioned at 12.30 p.m. By consent, taken on board.

2 Appeal is admitted. But the question of maintainability of the appeal is kept pending.

3 Appeal shall be listed for hearing along with Appeal Lodging No.293 of 2011, on 19th July, 2011. High on board.”

4. Since we had some doubts regarding the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court Bombay, considering the nature of the impugned Judgment and Order and the proceedings in which the impugned Judgment and Order was passed, hearing was adjourned to 19/7/2011. Accordingly, on 19/7/2011 Learned Senior Counsel commenced their submissions on the question of maintainability. In the mean time, since the Supreme Court of India had delivered its Judgment in the case of FuerstDay Lawson Ltd. v/s. Jindal Exports Ltd.in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11945 of 2010 on 8/7/2011 dealing with a similar issue regarding the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against an Order passed in proceedings under Part-II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (subsequently reported in 2011(7) SCALE page 513) 2011(7) SCALE p