Section 50(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) provides for an appeal only against an order refusing to enforce a foreign award.

Section 49 of the 1996 Act states that a foreign award shall be deemed to be a decree of the court, only when the court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable.

Section 6 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the 1961 Act) (repealed by the 1996 Act) states that no appeal lies against a decree except in so far as the decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the award.

Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (the 1940 Act) (repealed by the 1996 Act) provides for an appeal against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an award.

The case consists of a batch of special leave petitions filed against the orders of the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had taken a view that no appeal lies against a single judge's order enforcing a foreign award, whereas the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had held otherwise. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India, in this batch of cases, has dealt with the question of maintainability of a letters patent appeal against a single judge's order enforcing a foreign award.

The Supreme Court of India held that no letters patent appeal will lie against a single judge's order enforcing a foreign award. It therefore set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the appeals from the orders of the Delhi High Court. The court reasoned its decision on three points.

First, the court analysed the appeal provisions of special statues. It held that, as the 1996 Act was a special Act setting out a self-contained code, the applicability of the general law procedure of appeals was impliedly excluded. The court relied on its decision in PS Sathappan v Andhra Bank Ltd and Ors (2004) 11 SCC 672, in which the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right of a letters patent appeal can be removed by an express provision in a special Act, which need not use the word "letters patent", as long it is clear that all further appeals are barred.

Second, the court compared section 6 of the 1961 Act with sections 49 and 50 of the 1996 Act to understand the changes in the appeal provisions. The court observed that section 6 of the 1961 Act provided for a limited ground of appeal and that the scheme of sections 49 and 50 of the 1996 Act is devised specifically to exclude even that limited ground.

Third, the court examined the scheme of the 1996 Act and came to the conclusion that the 1996 Act is a "consolidating legislation", as it has taken into account the UNCITRAL Model Law and consolidated and amended the law relating to:

This decision has elucidated the importance of a consolidating legislation vis a vis general laws of civil procedure. By not providing room for appeal, the Supreme Court has strengthened the intention of the legislature in enacting section 50 of the 1996 Act. This is therefore a step forward in the enforcement of foreign awards in India.

Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd and others etc v Jindal Exports Ltd and others etc., Special Leave Petition Nos. 11945 and others, (8 July 2011).