Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-18-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Ker111; 2004(1)KLT55
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Is an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by a Judge of this Court on an appeal against the Order or Decree of a Court or Tribunal maintainable despite Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 22 of 2002? This is the core of the controversy before this Bench in these two appeals from first Appeals filed under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act read with Order XLII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A.F.A. 83 of 2002 arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 467 of 1999 of this Court. This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. 24 of 1989 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The trial court found that all claimants are entitled to a share in the amount of compensation. One of the claimants, who claimed exclusive right over the entire compensation, filed the Land Acquisition Appeal. Since the value of the subject matter of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-13-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR705; [2005]125CompCas14(Bom); (2004)1CompLJ358(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj1046; [2004]49SCL660(Bom)
A.P. Shah J.1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively on the issue as to whether Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, (for short 'SEBI Act') as amended by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002, is prospective or retrospective in operation. The amended Section 15Z came into force with effect from 29-10-2002. The maintainability of the above appeals has been questioned having regard to the said amendment to Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. SEBI Appeal Nos. 1 and 9 of 2002 were filed much prior to the coming into force of the amended Section 15Z. SEBI Appeal Nos. 10 of 2002 and 1 of 2003, however, have been filed after the amendment was brought into force though the orders impugned in both the appeals were passed before the amendment. The question is whether an appeal would lie to the High Court after the commencement of the amended Section 15Z. There is also an issue as to whether pending appeals whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-19-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT225
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 5(2) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the judgment of learned single Judge of this court. Maintainability of the appeals has been questioned in view of Section 100-A introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment} Act 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002. Section 100-Aof the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below for easy reference.'100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by aSingle Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge.Contention was raised that in view of the provisions of Section 100-A of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 appeals filed after 1.7.2002 under Section 5(2) of the Kerala ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-04-2003
Reported in : AIR2003Guj275; (2003)2GLR926; (2003)2PLR926; [2003]46SCL118(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these appeals have been placed before this Full Bench in view of the order dated 19-6-2002 of a Division Bench of this Court referring the appeals for consideration and decision before the Larger Bench in view of the wide impact of the questions about interpretation of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure and about maintainability of appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the T.M. Act') against the decision made by a learned single Judge of this Court under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 109 of the Act.2. O. J. Appeal No. 53 of 1998 is filed against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1998 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 109(2) & (4) of the Act by which the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22-12-1995 granting the review application filed by Nasik Hing Supplying Co. (the appellant befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jul-29-2003
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR527(Jhr)]
ORDER1. A suit, Title Suit No. 5 of 1986 was filed by the appellants herein as the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 29.4.1989. An appeal was filed before this Court by the plaintiffs on 24.7.1989. That appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.1.2002. This appeal was filed invoking Clause 10 of the Letter Patent. The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 22 of 2002 and Act 46 of 1999 was brought into force with effect from 1.7.2002. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977 was amended. The present appeal was filed only on 30.9.2002, after the coming into force of the amended Section 100A of the Code. The question is whether this appeal is maintainable or could be entertained by this Court. 2. Even at the outset, we must express our disappointment at the assistance we received in deciding this difficult question....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-10-2003
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 : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-18-2003
Reported in : II(2004)ACC655; 2005ACJ29; AIR2004Raj39; 2005(1)KLT828; RLW2004(3)Raj1454; 2004(1)WLC339
Mathur, J. 1. At the motion stage, a question of wide ramification arises for consideration is whether the Special Appeal filed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of a learned single Judge passed in an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in view of Section 100A introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 1-7-2002?2. The impact of Section 100A with respect, to special appeals preferred under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, as stood before commencement of the Constitution and imported under Article 225 of the Constitution, against an original or appellate decree or order passed by the learned single Judge after 1-7-2002 was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in UCO Bank v. Roopa Ram reported in (2003) 6 ILD 421 : (AIR 2003 Rajasthan 222), to which one of us (Mathur, J.) was a party. The Division Bench held that in view of Section 100A of the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-02-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Bom38; (2004)1BOMLR833; [2003]117CompCas506(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated April 2, 2003, on Company Petition No. 45 of 2002 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, since reported in Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Company [2003] 117 Comp Cas 467. Appeal (Lodging) No. 4 of 2003 is filed by the original petitioner while Appeal (Lodging) No. 6 of 2003 is filed by the original respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the Company Law Board. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioner is hereinafter referred as 'the appellant' and original respondents are referred to by their respective numbers before the Company Law Board. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 is a director of respondent No. 1-company. Respondent No. 3 was also a director of respondent No. 1 till he resigned on June 4, 2002, and was replaced by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 purports to be the managing d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-17-2003
Reported in : 2004(2)BomCR530; 2004(1)MhLj532
A. P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge, extending the time for the first respondent to file its written statement beyond the period of 90 days, prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by exercising inherent power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned single Judge extended time by holding that Section 148 could be invoked to extend the period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1, notwithstanding the Proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1, which curtails the power of a Court to extend time only up to 90 days. The appeal raises important question involving the scope and interpretation of the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) with effect from 1st July 2002. The more fundamental issue is whether the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 would apply to suits on the Original Side or Original Side Rules cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-22-2003
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!