The question for our consideration is rather narrow: Is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (as applicable to the Delhi High Court) maintainable against an order enforcing a foreign award (within the meaning of Sections 44 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Article II of the New York Convention)? The question is required to be answered in the context of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, in our opinion, the answer is in the negative. For this conclusion, we rely upon a four-Judge decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. AIR 1962 SC 256 and a Constitution Bench decision in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 672.

2. The broad facts of the case are that two foreign awards were rendered in favour of the Respondent on 30th August, 1996 and 16th October, 1996. The Respondent moved execution petitions under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration and Conciliation Act) for their enforcement, while the Appellant challenged their enforceability. By a judgment and order dated 11th December, 2009 a learned Single Judge directed the enforcement of the Awards. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant is before us under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent as applicable to the Delhi High Court. By way of a preliminary objection, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the appeal is not maintainable and for this he relied on Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Statutory provisions

3. Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as follows: - ?Appealable orders.—

(1) An appeal shall lie from the order refusing to—

(a) refer the parties to arbitration under Section 45;

(b) enforce a foreign award under Section 48; to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from such order.

(2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or

take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

4. The Delhi High Court was constituted by the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (the DHC Act) and not by the Letters Patent. However, the Letters Patent as applicable to the erstwhile Punjab and Lahore High Courts are applicable to the Delhi High Court. Section 5 of the DHC Act confers original jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court while Section 10 thereof confers appellate jurisdiction. These provisions read as follows:

“5. Jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi. - (1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees twenty lakhs.

10. Powers of Judges. - (1) Where a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (2) of section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to the powers of the Chief Justice, single Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Punjab and with respect to all matters ancillary to the exercise of those powers, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Delhi.

5. Clause 10 and Clause 37 of the Letters Patent, as applicable to the Delhi High Court read as follows:

10. Appeals to the High Court from Judges of the Court – And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at