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

2003 Supreme(Raj) 68

BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE
Krishi Upaj Mandi – Appellant
Versus
Krishi Upaj Mandi – Respondent


Advocates:
Appearance :
Dinesh Maheshwari, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Judgment

Bhagwati Prasad, J.-Heard.

2. These appeals are filed against the orders of the courts below, wherein, the valuation of the suit was less than Rs. 25,000/-. The valuation being less than Rs. 25,000/-, today when these appeals are being considered as second appeals, the question arises as to whether such appeals can be entertained or not.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these two appeals has urged that the basic question which requires consideration of this court is the import of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as ‘General Clauses 1897).

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as and when the lis starts, the right of appeal, if provided at that time accrues to the litigant as a vested right. In terms of amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure as introduced in 1999 and 2002, there had been no attempt by the Legislature to take away any vested right. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Amendment of 2002’) saves Section 6 of General Clauses Act in its generality.

5. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as and when an appeal was


































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