Thu. Dec 3rd, 2020

Eros Resorts & Hotels Ltd vs Explorer Associates Pvt Ltd & Anr on 11 May, 2018

2 min read

34. The above analysis reveals that:- (a) the word „judgment‟
appearing in Section 13(1) of the said Act actually relates or
has a reference to a „decree‟; (b) the word „order‟ in that
provision would have to be construed in the light of Section
2(14) of the CPC as meaning „a formal expression of a decision
of a Civil Court which is not a decree; (c) the appealable
orders would be only those which are specifically enumerated
under Order XLIII, as provided in the proviso to Section 13(1)
of the said Act.

35. Now, let us examine sub-section (2) of section 13 of the said
Act. As noticed above, it begins with the non obstante
expression “notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High
Court ..”. The words – “any other law for the time being in
force” – would include the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The
portion after the non obstante expression specifically cautions
that “no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a
Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of this Act”. In other words,
whatever may be contained in, inter alia, the Delhi High Court
Act, 1966, an appeal from any order or decree of a Commercial
Division or Commercial Court “shall lie” only in accordance
with the provisions of the said Act. To be clear, if an appeal
from a particular kind of order or decree were to be provided
under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 but not under the said
Act then, such an order or decree would not be appealable.
Therefore, even if, by virtue of section 10 of the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966, an appeal lay from a particular kind of an
order, no appeal could be preferred thereagainst unless the
said Act itself provided for such an appeal.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply