RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
A perusal of Section 100-A indicates that Section begins with non-obstante clause.Section provides (i)Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court (ii) or any other instrument having the force of law and (iii)or in any other law for the time being in force. The Section indicates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court no further appeal shall lie notwithstanding the above three situations mentioned. The words “any other law for the time being in force ” shall also cover the appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act. Thus, even if nothing can be read in Section 483 excluding an appeal against an order of learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction before the Division Bench, appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is excluded under Section 00-A Civil Procedure Code. The Apex Court has recently occasion to consider both Section 483 of the Companies Act as well as Section 00-A C.P.C. in Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr. Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd &Ors,2006 (7)SCC 613.
In the above case,a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act was filed before the Company Law Board Company Law Board issued several directions on 29/10/1999.Against which an appeal was filed before the learned Company Judge under Section 10F of the Companies Act. Learned Company Judge allowed the appeal. Learned Single Judge set-aside the order of the Company Law Board against which order of the learned Single Judge, Special Leave to Appeal was filed in the Apex Court. One of the preliminary objection was raised before the Apex Court that the appellant had a right of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court, hence the appeal before the Supreme Court be not entertained. In the above context, the Apex Court examined the preliminary objection. The Apex Court noticed both the contentions thatthe appeal before the Division Bench shall lie under Section 483 of the Companies Act as well as Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal. Following was laid down in paragraph 23 which is quoted below:
“23.Therefore, where appeal has been decided from an original order by a single Judge, no further appeal has been provided and that power which used to be there underthe Letters Patent of the High Court has been subsequently withdrawn. The present order which has been passed by the CLB and against that appeal has been provided before theHigh Court under Section 10F of the Act that is an appeal from the original order. Then in that case no further Letters Patent Appeal shall lie to the Division Bench of the same High Court. This amendment has taken away the power of the Letters Patent in the matter where learned single Judge hears an appeal from the original order. Original order in the present case was passed by the CLB exercising the power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act and appeal has been preferred undersection 10F of the Act before the High Court . Learned single Judge having passed an order, no further appeal will lie as the Parliament in its wisdom has taken away its power. Earned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to a letter from the then Law Minister. That letter cannot override the statutory provision. When the statute is very clear, whatever statement by the Law Minister made in the floor of the House, cannot changethe words and intendment which is borne out from the words. The letter of the Law Minister cannot be read to interpret the provisions of Section 00A.The intendment of the Legislature is more than clear in the words and the same has to be given its natural meaning and cannot be subject to any statement made by the Law Minister in any communication. The words speak for itself. It does not require any further interpretation by any statement made in any manner. Therefore, the power of the High Court in exercising Letters Patent in a matter where a single Judge has decided the appeal from original order, has been taken away and it cannot be invoked in the present context. There is no two opinion in the matter that when the CLB exercises its power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, it exercised its quasi- judicial power as original authority. It may not be a court but it has all the trapping of a court. Therefore, the CLB while exercising its original jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act passed
the order and against that order appeal lies to the learned single Judge of the High Court and thereafter no further appeal could be filed.”
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd.,on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was specifically considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Dutta (supra).In paragraph 25 it was laid down that the said judgment does not lay down the correct law. Following was laid down in paragraph 25 which is quoted below:
“25.In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Co. In that case, the
High Court took the view that despite the amendment in Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, order passed by the Single Judge in appeal arising out of the order passed by CLB under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, appeal lay to the Division Bench and in that connection, the Division Bench invoked Section 4 (1)of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other lawfor the time being in force and, therefore, the Division Bench concluded that the letters patent appeal is a statutory appeal and special enactment. Therefore, appeal shall lie to the Division Bench. We regret to say that this is not the correct position of law. We have already explained the
facts above and we have explained Section 00-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to indicate that the power was specifically taken away by the legislature. Therefore, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. cannot be said to be the correct proposition of law.”
In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that even if under Section 483,there was no condition prohibiting an appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge passed in appellate exercise of jurisdiction, the said exclusion has been now specifically provided in by the Legislature underSection 00-A C.P.C. The judgment of the Apex Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta (supra)applies with full force in the facts of the present case.
In the present case, the order impugned was passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal/Objection 85/2007.An application for correction was moved inthe order which has also been rejected. The learned Single Judge decided the appeal/objection against
