SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(AP) 688

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, C.V.RAMULU, G.ROHINI
Gandla Pannala Bhulaxmi – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, APSRTC – Respondent


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













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top