Title: Chilaka v. Emory Hill & Co.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 344, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KRISHNA CHILAKA, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
EMORY HILL & CO., and 
KEYUR MODI, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§     No. 344, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§     Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§     of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§     C.A. No. 2022-0231 
§                     
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 25, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  November 9, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 18, 2022, the appellant, Krishna Chilaka, filed a notice 
of appeal from the Court of Chancery’s August 31, 2022 order adopting the bench 
ruling issued by a Court of Chancery master on August 18, 2022.  Because the 
appellees’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs remains pending in the Court of 
Chancery, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to Chilaka to show cause why this 
appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 
42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.  In response to the 
2 
 
notice to show cause, Chilaka argues that his appeal is meritorious, but he does not 
address the interlocutory nature of the appeal. 
(2) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.1  An order is deemed final 
and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order be the court’s 
final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2  This Court 
has repeatedly held that an order is not final and appealable if the trial court has not 
ruled on an outstanding application for attorneys’ fees.3 
(3) 
After careful consideration, we conclude that this appeal must be 
dismissed as interlocutory.  The appellees’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs 
was outstanding when Chilaka filed the appeal and remains so now.  Chilaka was 
therefore required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 or await the Court of 
Chancery’s entry of a final order.  Chilaka’s filing fee for any future appeal from the 
Court of Chancery’s final judgment will be waived. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2 J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 
3 ICATECH Corp. v. Facchina, 2021 WL 225825, at *1 (Del. Jan. 22, 2021).