Judgment : This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10 September, 2010 by which the application under Section (8) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short Act henceforth) for referring the disputes has been rejected. Though the appeal has been admitted for hearing but at the time of admission the point of appealability was kept reserved for decision. Mr. Samit Talukder, Senior Counsel submits that the order refusing to pass an order for reference under Section (8) of the said Act is not an appealable one within the meaning of Section 37 of the said Act. He urges that said Act is a special one and it had got overriding effect over Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. He urges further that Clause 15 has to be read with Clause 44 of the Letters Patent by which the provision of any other enactment as mentioned in Clause 44 has to be given primacy over Clause 15. Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that in view of the provision of law and particularly interpretation of scope and purport of Clause 15 of Letters Patent given by the Supreme Court in the case of (LIVERPOOL & LONDON S.P. & I ASSOCIATION LTD. Versus M.V. SEA SUCCESS I AND ANOTHER) reported in (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512 the impugned order is not appelable. After considering the submission of the learned Counsel for both sides on this aspect we are inclined to hold any order passed under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is not an appealable one under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. As it is rightly submitted by Mr. Talukder that the said Act is a special and comprehensive statute and the same must be read as an enactment within the meaning of Clause 44 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, it is apposite to set out Clause 44 of the Letters Patent as below;- “44. As it is rightly submitted by Mr. Talukder that the said Act is a special and comprehensive statute and the same must be read as an enactment within the meaning of Clause 44 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, it is apposite to set out Clause 44 of the Letters Patent as below;- “44. Powers of Indian Legislature preserved.- And We do further ordain and declare, that all the provisions of these Our Letters Patent are subject to the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Legislative Council and also of the Governor-General in Council under Section 71 of the Government of India Act, 1915, and also of the Governor-General in cases of Emergency under Section 72 of that Act, and may be in all respects amended and altered thereby.” Section 37 of the said Act has provided category of the orders being appelable. The language of sub Section 1 of Section 37 is very specific and with a negative import. When any statutory provision carries any negative import the intention of the legislators must be understood that no other idea can be thought of under any circumstances. Accordingly, Section 37 of the said Act at its entirety is set out below;- “37. Appealable orders.- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- (a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order of the arbitral tribunal- (a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3)No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.” In this connection it would useful to take note paragraph 124 of the Supreme Court Judgment sited by Mr. Joydeep Kar, as follows;- “124. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not a special statute. Only in a case where there exists an express prohibition in the matter of maintainability of an intra-court appeal, the same may not be held to be maintainable. Joydeep Kar, as follows;- “124. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not a special statute. Only in a case where there exists an express prohibition in the matter of maintainability of an intra-court appeal, the same may not be held to be maintainable. But in the event there does not exist any such prohibition and if the order will otherwise be a “judgment” within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal shall be maintainable.” However, it would be appropriate to place on record that when the Supreme Court has explained that if there be any express prohibition in the matter of maintainability Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will not becoming to rescue the litigant. It can unmistakably be concluded that Section 37 provides for express prohibition with the words “and from no others”. In these circumstances we uphold the argument of Mr. Talukder that this appeal is not maintainable. Mr. Kar submits that this order should not preclude his client from taking appropriate measure against the impugned judgment and order. We think that sub Section 3 of Section 37 has been provided for this purpose. Hence, we do not record anything else in this respect. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. It would be crystal clear from our judgment that we did not have any occasion to decide the matter on merit. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of usual formalities.