The 1996 Act is a self-contained and exhaustive code, and no appeal lies against an order not appealable under Section 50. Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act does not apply to cases covered by Section 50 of the Arbitration Act.

Indira Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal is against an order dated 9.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Bench in a petition filed under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act" for, inter alia, enforcement and execution of a Foreign Award.

2. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge rejected the objections of the appellant against enforcement of the Award and directed the appellant to disclose its assets to enable the respondent to execute the Award.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Mr.Hiroo Advani has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal, on the ground that the impugned order is not appealable under Section 50 of the 1996 Act.

4. Section 50(1) of the 1996 Act, which provides for appeals in relation to international arbitration and Foreign Awards, provides as follows:

“50. 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.”

5. It is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 333 that no intra Court appeal lies against an order not appealable under Section 50 since the Letters Patent is not applicable to appeals under the 1996 Act, the 1996 Act being a self-contained code.

6. In Fuerst Day Lawson Limited, supra, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“36. The decisions noticed so far lay down certain broad principles that may be stated as follows:

(i) Normally, once an appeal reaches the High Court it has to be determined according to the rules of practice and procedure of the High Court and in accordance with the provisions of the charter under which the High Court is constituted and which confers on it power in respect to the method and manner of exercising that power.

(ii) When a statute merely directs that an appeal shall lie to a court already established then that appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that court.

(iii) The High Court derives its intra-court appeal jurisdiction under the Charter by which it was established and its powers under the Letters Patent were recognised and saved by Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and finally, by Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, therefore, cannot be divested of its Letters Patent jurisdiction unless provided for expressly or by necessary intendment by some special statute.

(iv) If the pronouncement of the Single Judge qualifies as a “judgment”, in the absence of any bar created by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication, it would be subject to appeal under the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of the High Court.

(v) Since Section 104(1) CPC specifically saves the letters patent appeal; it could only be excluded by an express mention in Section 104(2). In the absence of any express mention in Section 104(2), the maintainability of a letters patent appeal is saved by virtue of Section 104(1).

(vi) Limitation of a right of appeal in absence of any provision in a statute cannot be readily inferred. The appellate jurisdiction of a superior court cannot be taken as excluded simply because a subordinate court exercises its special jurisdiction.

(vii) The exception to the aforementioned rule is where the special Act sets out a self-contained code and in that event the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded. The express provision need not refer to or use the words “letters patent” but if on a reading of the provision it is clear that all further appeals are barred then even a letters patent appeal would be barred.

37. These general principles are culled out from the decisions of this Court rendered under Section 104 CPC and various other Acts, as noted above. But there i