GANDLA PANNALA BHULAXMI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC
LAWS(APH)-2003-6-12
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
June 10,2003
GANDLA PANNALA BHULAXMI
Appellant
VERSUS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
VINITA M KHANOLKAR VS. PRAGNA M PAI [REFERRED TO]SHARDA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
S SHIVA RAJA REDDY VS. S RAHGU RAJ REDDY [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MOHD SAUD VS. MAJ SHAIKH MAHFOOZ [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-26] [REFERRED TO]SHAHAZADI BEE VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA DAS VS. KISHORE CHANDRA DAS [LAWS(ORI)-2007-6-2] [RELIED ON]
MAHAMMED SAUD VS. SHAIKH MAHFOOZ [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
R S R T C VS. VAIBHAV KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-3-13] [RELIED ON]
MAHARAO BRIJRAJ SINGH VS. SARAWATI DEVI SHARMA ALIAS PODDARNI [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KUMAR DUTTA VS. RUBY GENERAL HOSPITAL LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SAUD VS. MAJ SHAIKH MAHFOOZ [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. AMBABEN SANJAYBHAI RAMESHBHAI VASAVA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L A SRBC NANDYAL VS. N VASUDEVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. S SURYA PRAKASH REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2006-6-136] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUAMR SINGH VS. MOST RAJEYA KHATOON [LAWS(PAT)-2014-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-285] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA DAS VS. KISHORE CHANDRA DAS, [LAWS(ORI)-2007-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND MAVJI GORASIYA VS. VELBAI NARAN VARSANI D/O NATHA HARJI HALAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH R DHARIWAL VS. SUBHASH HASTIMAL LODHA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.Sudershan Reddy, J. -
(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."
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.
(2.)The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the letters patent appeal preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in C.M.A.No.88 of 1998 is maintainable? This Court in S.Shiva Raja Reddy and others v. S.Raghu Raj Reddy held that "all the letters patent appeals presented or filed before 1-7-2002 are maintainable whether they have been admitted or not. What is prohibited is filing of the letters patent appeals after 1-7-2002 i.e. after the new Act had come into force."
(3.)We are required to notice that the Parliament made amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') under Act 22 of 2002. For Section 100-A of the Principal Act (as substituted by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) the following section is substituted:
"100A. No further appeal in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other 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 a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge."
"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."
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.
(2.)The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the letters patent appeal preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in C.M.A.No.88 of 1998 is maintainable? This Court in S.Shiva Raja Reddy and others v. S.Raghu Raj Reddy held that "all the letters patent appeals presented or filed before 1-7-2002 are maintainable whether they have been admitted or not. What is prohibited is filing of the letters patent appeals after 1-7-2002 i.e. after the new Act had come into force."
(3.)We are required to notice that the Parliament made amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') under Act 22 of 2002. For Section 100-A of the Principal Act (as substituted by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) the following section is substituted:
"100A. No further appeal in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other 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 a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.