Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 34, 3 7 - Respondent entered into an agreement with appellant in respect of reconstruction project - According to appellant, respondent failed to adhere to the time frame for completion of contract - Consequently, appellant rescinded the contract - Then rejp01ideni invoked arbitration clause, wherein the Arbitrator passed an mvard holding that the rescindment order passed by the appellant was illegal - Aggrieved appellant filed a petition for selling aside award u/s.34 before the district court, which held petition not maintainable Appellant then challenged the award before High Court along with application for condonation of delay - Single Judge allowed the _ application for condonation of delay - Aggrieved respondent preferred intra court Letters Patent Appeal - Division bench reversed the order of Single Judge by invoking its jurisdiction under Letters Patent appeal - On appeal, held: There is no scope of remedy of Letters Patent appeal in relation to judgment of the Single Judge - No appeal is provided against an order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction condoning the delay in filing the petition u/s.34 - Whether Single Judge had rightly exercised the discretion or otherwise, could be assailed by the respondent before Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition - But, not by way of Letters Patent Appeal u/Cl. 15 - Jurisdiction - Letters Patent of High Court at Calcutta - Cl.15.