CLOSE

06 July 2021, Tuesday

3 years ago

3. Ad-interim order made in Section 9 petition is not appealable (Meghalaya High Court)

06 July 2021 | National Thermal Power Corporation v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Limited | Arb. A. No. 1 of 2021 | HS Thangkhiew and W Diengdoh JJ | 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 134

The Meghalaya High Court refused to entertain an appeal against an ad-interim order made in an application under Section 9 ACA. The matter was a dispute between the power generating company NTPC and its licensee MPDL. An ex parte ad-interim order was made by Shillong’s Commercial Court against NTPC, and it was directed to maintain the status quo on encashment of a letter of credit. However, the court gave liberty to apply for vacation or modification of the order. NTPC applied for vacating the order, but that application was rejected. Now, NTPC filed an appeal under Section 37 ACA read with Section 13 CCA.

The court concluded that:-

  1. Section 37 (1) (b) ACA contemplates appeals against final orders only. Section 8 CCA narrows the scope further and bars a petition against an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court.
  2. The order in the case was ad interim and not conclusive as to the reliefs sought.
  3. Section 13 (1) CCA merely provides the appeals forum and does not confer an independent right of appeal. Thus, if an appeal is not maintainable under Section 37 ACA, it would not be maintainable under Section 13 CCA.

All other arguments, including a challenge that the matter fell under the Electricity Act and the Commercial Court had no jurisdiction under the ACA was left to be determined by the Section 9-court.

Access the decision here.

BACK   Next  

Categories: Ad Interim Orders | Appealable Orders | BGS Soma | Electricity Act | Interim Measures by Court | Kandla Export | Maintainability | Scope of Section 9 ACA | Section 13 CCA | Section 37 ACA | Section 8 CCA

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST:

connect with us: