Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In furtherance of order dated 20-8-2004 passed by the Full Bench, LPA (SR) No. 87377 of 2003 has been placed before the Larger Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether, after insertion of amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment 2. The background in which the aforementioned question has been referred to the Larger Bench deserves to be noticed first.3. By an award dated 1-10-1996, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi directed M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum to Sri 5. Surya Prakash Reddy in lieu of the death of his wife Rukmini caused in an accident which took place on 31-5-1991 on Tirupathi - Chandragiri Road. The appeal preferred by M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP160
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. What is inherent lack of jurisdiction? This is the crucial question we will have to answer while deciding this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. It has arisen out of execution proceedings. The respondent has levied execution of a decree he had obtained in A. S. No. 198/73 in the District Court, Srikakulam. That appeal had been preferred by the plaintiff-decree-holder against the decision of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Srikakulam which partly decreed his suit O. S. 37/72. He filed that suit on 13th of July 1972 to recover a sum of Rs. 9,300/-. While the suit was pending the Civil Courts Act was amended with effect from 1-11-1972, conferring jurisdiction on District Courts to entertain appeals against suits upto the value of Rs. 15,000/-. Until then, that pecuniary limit was limited to Rs. 7,500/-. The Subordinate Judge's Court partly decreed the suit some time later i.e., on 3rd July, 1973. Seeking larger relief the plaintiff-decree-holder preferred A. S. No. 198/73 to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(5)ALD181; 2002(4)ALT594
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. In this group of letters patent appeals a common question arises for our consideration. It is to the following effect.'Whether Section 100-A C.P.C is retrospective and no letters patent appeal will lie against a judgment of a single Judge passed in an appeal from an original decree or order and whether all such of those letters patent appeals filed prior to 1-7-2002 alone are saved?'2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties very elaborately on the above question. Having regard to the importance of the question, we have requested the learned senior Counsel Sri Chella Seetharamayya and Sarvasri K. V.Satyanarayana and VLNGK Murthy to assist the Court as Amiciis Curiae. SriJ.V.Suryanarayana, the learned senior Counsel and Sri Kodanda Ram Murthy, advocates intervened in the debate and having regard to the importance of the question that falls for our consideration, we have permitted them to intervene and heard their submissions.3. Since we prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003ACJ2004; AIR2003AP458; 2003(4)ALT216; 2003(3)CTC667
1. A Division Bench of this Court made the following reference to the Full Bench:'Whether the right of appeal available under the Letters Patent Act is taken away by Section 100-A, C.P.C. in respect of matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having force of law.' 2. This LPA itself has been preferred against the orders of a learned single Judge of this Court in C.M.A. No. 88 of 1998. The matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition filed by the appellant herein seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in an accident has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, against which an appeal was filed before the learned single Judge of this Court under Section 173 of the Act. The learned Judge dismissed the said appeal by order dated 14-6-2002, against which the present LPA has been filed.3. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the letters patent appeal preferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]63CompCas328(AP)
Rama Rao, J.1. A. S. No. 532 of 1978 : The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,60,425.04 together with interest personally against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 8, 10 to 13 and against the assets of defendants Nos. 3 and 9 in the hands of defendant Nos. 14 to 22 and in default of payment for sale of the suit property for realisation of the decree debt. The suit is filed on the basis of a promissory note executed for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 and agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 5% over the Reserve Bank rate with a minimum of 11% per annum subject to periodical enhancement. The plea of the defendants is that the rate of interest is abnormal and excessive. Apart from other pleas, it is stated that the amount has to be scaled down fixing a reasonable rate of interest. The learned judge found that for the principal amount of Rs. 1,30,000, Rs. 52,280.04 is claimed. The learned judge held that this is unurious, penal and unconscionable. In the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD83; 2004(2)ALT764
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 5-11-2002, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kumool, dismissing the application in E.A. No. 373 of 2002 in E.P, No. 460 of 1997 in O.P. No. 132 of 1991, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 450 of days in filing an application for restoration of the said E.P.2. The petitioner is the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor.3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as 'the decree-holder and judgment-debtor' respectively.4. The factual background in short is that in Land Acquisition Proceedings, some amount along with additional market value had been awarded by the Civil Court towards compensation in O.P. No. 132 of 1991, In order to recover the said amount, the present E.P., had been filed by the decree-holder after a lapse of more than eleven years, but within the period of limitation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD430; 2003(5)ALT720
ORDERP.S. Naryana, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in AS No. 8/89 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram reversing the judgment and decree made in OS No. 189/76 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bobbili, had preferred the present Second Appeal. The points which were framed for consideration in the Appeal A.S. No. 8/89 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram are as follows:(1) Whether the judgment in S.A.No. 170/ 58 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh operates as res judicata?(2) Whether the plaintiff/1st respondent in this appeal is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property?(3) To what relief?2. The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in the Original Suit for the purpose of convenience.3. The plaintiff herein instituted OS No. 189/76 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bobbili for the relief of possession of plaint schedule p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(3)ALT492
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition assails the Constitutional validity of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the consequent notification issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 2, Labour Department, dated 20-1-1994 in exercise of the powers Under Section 17-A(1) of the Act stating that the award dated 1-9-1993 passed in I.D. No. 349 of 1994 (sic. 1991) shall not be enforceable for the reasons stated therein. The challenge is to the vires of the Section, which is the prime argument; the second argument being the unsustainability of the reasons stated in the consequent notification as baseless and irrelevant.2. The petitioner-Telugunadu Work-charged Employees State Federation, Nalgonda District Unit-is a Trade Union and is the District Union of Telugunadu Trade Union Council, having been registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is stated that the petitioner comprises of 1,500 members and that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(3)ALT384
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. This appeal assails the Judgment of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S.No. 39 of 1982 dated 17-4-1989 allowing the appeal which was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Anakapalli in O.S.No. 305 of 1979 dated 19-12-1981.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit who got a decree. The respondent herein was the 1st defendant in the suit whereas the second defendant in the suit who filed written statement and did not pursue the case was not impleaded as a party in the appeal in A.S.N0.39/82 and also in this appeal. The parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the 1st defendant regarding the status they occupied in the suit and that serves the convenience.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit lands and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the same, for costs and such other reli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993AP297; 1993(2)ALT97
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Whether a claim petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. and pending on the date of commencement of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 has to be dealt with in accordance with the pre-amended Rules 58 to 63 of Order XXI, or in accordance with the amended Rules 58 and 59, and whether a suit under the repealed Rule 63 lies against the order passed therein, are the questions that broadly fall for consideration in this Second Appeal and the C.R.P. The answer to this question mainly depends on the interpretation of Sectoin 97 (2) and (3) of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force on 1-2-1977. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Jeevan Reddy, J. and Sardar Ali Khan, J. before whom the Second Appeal came up for hearing on a reference by the learned single Judge, felt that in view of the various conflicting decisions on this point, the matter is fit to be decided by a Full Bench. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the Division Benc...
Tag this Judgment!