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

2002 Supreme(MP) 968

2002(2) JLJ 327
(FULL BENCH)
Dipak Misra, S.K. Kulshrestha and K.K. Lahoti, JJ.
Laxminarayan v. Shivlal Gujar and others
L.P.A. No. 461 of 2000; arising out from First Appeal No. 50 of
1996 decided by Single Judge; Decided on 3.10.2002.

Advocates:
N.S. Kale with Harvindar Singh and G. Mukhopadhyay for
appellant; Divesh Jain for respondent No. l; S.K. Yadav for
respondent No.7; Ravish Agrawal, amicus curiae.

Headnote:(1) Letters Patent – Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 100A -- Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 -- S. 16 -- pending Letters Patent Appeals on date of amendment -- are saved -- no such appeal can be filed after date of amendment, i.e., 1.7.2002.

       The centripodal issue is whether section 100A which has been brought on the statute book does annul the right to prefer a Letters Patent Appeal in entirety taking away the scope of adjudication of the pending appeals or it only erodes the vested rights to the limited extent. [Para 32

       Held : Section 100A of the Code employs the words that 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 from such Single Judge. The words which are of immense signification in this provision are ‘is heard ‘and decided‘. These words are used absolutely in praesenti. That apart, the words ‘no further appeal shall lie‘ are also to be conjointly read with ‘is heard and decided‘. [Para 40

       We are of the considered opinion, that no appeal which is covered within the ambit and sweep of the language used under section 100A of the Code would lie after 1.7.2002. It is prospective to that extent and, if we allow ourselves to say so, it has limited retroactivity by which the vested right on a suitor qua a suit filed prior to 1.7.2002 is not saved but the fate of pending appeals before the cut off date remains unaffected. (1998) 7 SCC 157, (1998) 4 SCC 456, (2001) 8 SCC 257, (2001) 7 SCC 358, AIR 2001 SC 724, (2001) 9 SCC 673, AIR 2001 SC 1980, (2001) 8 SCC 24, (2002) 3 SCC 722, (1977) 2 SCC 273, AIR 1996 SC 238 and (1898) 2 QB 547 discussed and followed. [Para 44

       (2) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- Letters Patent -- is a word of definite legal meaning -- it is derived from the latin words literae patents. (2002) 5 SCC 548 followed. [Para 7

       (3) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- right of appeal -- is a substantive and vested right.

       There is no scintilla of doubt that Letters Patent Appeal provided under clause 10 of the Letters Patent encapsules the right of appeal which is a substantive right. Its signification cannot be marginalised by treating it as an intra-Court appeal. AIR 1957 SC 540 followed. [Para 8

       (4) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- appeal -- is heard on facts and law as well-- it is the internal working of the High Court. 1996 MPLJ 1096 (SC) followed. [Para 9

       (5) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- appeal against decision of Single Judge -- no certificate is necessary. 1967 JLJ 569 relied on. [Para 10

       (6) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- appeal -- not exactly a second appeal under S. 100, CPC -- it does not lie on question of law only. AIR 1974 SC 2048 and CA No. 232/61 followed. [Para 10

       (7) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 96 -- Bench hearing LPA -- has some power as Single Bench hearing first appeal on facts as well as on law. 1979 JLJ 67 relied on. [Para 11

       (8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 100 and 101 -- Letters Patent Appeal -Cl. 10 -- limitations imposed on power of Court under Ss. 100 and 101 -- cannot be made applicable to the Bench hearing LP A. 1979 JLJ 180 and AIR 1974 Ori. 162 relied on. [Para 12

       (9) Appeal-- is a vested right from the very initiation of proceedings -- cannot be taken away except by express enactment or necessary intendment.

       A right of appeal is not merely a matter of procedure. It is a matter of substantive right. This right of appeal from the decision of an inferior tribunal to a superior tribunal becomes vested in a party when proceedings are first initiated in, and before a decision is given by, the inferior Court. Such a vested right cannot be taken away except by express enactment or necessary intendment. AIR 1964 SC 489, AIR 1953 SC 221 and AIR 1957 SC 540 followed. [Paras 14, 15 & 17

       (10) Precedent -- ratio of any decision -- ‘must be understood‘ in background of the facts of that case.

       The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. AIR 1987 SC 1073 followed. [Para 23

       (11) Precedent -- decision of Supreme Court -- is authority for the proposition it has decided.

       A decision of this Court is an authority for the proposition which it decides and not for what it has not decided or had no occasion to express an opinion on. (2002) 4 SCC 45 followed. [Para 24

       Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid‘s theorems nor as provisions of the statute. 2002 AIR SCW 500 followed. [Para 25

       (12) Precedent -- close similarity -- not enough -- even a single significant detail may alter entire aspect.

       Each case depends on its own facts and a Close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.... Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find ourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. 2002 AIR SCW 500 followed. [Para 25

       (13) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 --. S. 100A -- Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 -- S. 16 -- vested right of LPA -- is not totally abrogated or abridged even in absence of saving clause under S. 16 of the 2002 Act. (2000) 2 SCC 536 distinguished. 2002(3) MPLJ 504 overruled. [Para 26

       (14) Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 -- S. 16(2) -- use of words "without prejudice to the generality of the provision of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897" -- anything contained in provisions following this expression -- is not intended to cut down the generality of the meaning of preceding provision.

       If section 16 of the Amending Act is scanned, it is noticeable that in sub-section (2), the Legislature has used the words ‘without prejudice to the generality of the provision of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.‘ ... It is well-settled that when this expression is used, anything contained in the provisions following this expression is not intended to cut down the generality of the meaning of the preceding provision. (1970) 2 SCC 567 followed, 1980 JLJ 338 relied on. [Paras 27 & 28

       (15) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 47 -- fiction created to make the order ‘decree‘ -- removed by valid legislation in express words -- right of appeal thus taken away. 1990 JLJ 422 (FB) relied on. AIR 1986 SC 589 followed. [Paras 29 & 30

       (16) Letters Patent -- Cl. 10 -- order by Single Bench passed under O.43 R. 1 in niiscellaneous appeal -- no LPA can be entertained. 1995 JLJ 141 (FB) relied on. AIR 2000 SC 3335 followed. [Para 31

       ¼1½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100d && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2002 && /kkjk 16 && la‘kks/ku ds fnukad dks yafcr ysVlZ isVsaV vihysa && O;ko`Ùk gSa && ,slh vihy la‘kks/ku ds fnukad] vFkkZr~ 1-7-2002 ds i‘pkr~ Qkby ugha dh tk ldrh gSA

       dsnzh; fook|d ;g gS fd D;k dkuwuh iqLrd ij ykbZ xbZ /kkjk 100d }kjk yafcr vihyksa ds U;k;fu.kZ;u dh xqtkab‘k Nhu dj ysVlZ isVsaV vihy izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj iw.kZr%] ckfry dj fn;k x;k gS] vFkok mlls fufgr vf/kdkj dk dsoy lhfer ifjek.k rc {k; gksrk gSA

        ¿ iSjk 32À

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lafgrk dh /kkjk 100d eas ;g ‘‘kCn iz;qDr gSA fd tgk¡ fdlh ewy vFkok vihyh fMØh ;k vkns‘k ls vihy dh *lquokbZ vkSj mldk fofu‘p;* mPp U;k;ky; ds ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk fd;k x;k gks] ogk¡ ,sls ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k ds fu.kZ; rFkk fMØh ls vkxs dksbZ vihy ugha gksxhA bl mica/k esa tks ‘‘kCn vR;f/kd egRoiw.kZ gS] og gS *lquokbZ vkSj mldk fofu‘p;*A bu ‘‘kCnksa dks iw.kZr% orZeku esa iz;qDr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr] *vkxs dksbZ vihy ugha gksxh* ‘‘kCnksa dks Hkh lquokbZ vkSj mldk fofu‘p;* ds lkFk la;qDrr% i<+k tkuk gksxkA ¿ iSjk 40À

       gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd 1-7-2002 ds i‘pkr` ,slh dksbZ vihy ugha gksxh tks lafgrk dh /kkjk 100d ds v/khu iz;qDr Hkk"kk ds {ks= rFkk O;kfIr ds v/khu vkrh gksA og ml lhek rd Hkfo";y{kh gS rFkk] ;fn ge ,slk dgsa rc] bldk lhfer iwoZ&izHkko gS ftlds }kjk 1-7-2002 ls iwoZ Qkby fd, x, okn ds laca/k esa oknh dk fufgr vf/kdkj O;ko`Ùk ugha gksrk iajrq O;oPNsnu fnukad ls iwoZ yafcr vihyksa dk HkkX; vizHkkfor jgrk gSA ¼1998½ 7 ,l lh lh 157] ¼1998½ 4 ,l lh lh 456] ¼2001½ 8 ,l lh lh 257] ¼2001½ 7 ,l lh lh 358] , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 724] ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 673] , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 1980] ¼2001½ 8 ,l lh lh 24] ¼2002½ 3 ,l lh lh 722] ¼1977½ 2 ,l lh lh 273] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 238 rFkk ¼1898½ 2 D;w ch 547 foosfpr rFkk vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 44À

       ¼2½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && ysVlZ isVsaV && fuf‘pr fof/kd vFkZ;qDr ‘‘kCn gS && og ySfVu ‘‘kCn fyVjs isVsaV~l ls O;qRié gSA ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 548 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À

       ¼3½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && vihy dk vf/kdkj && ewy rFkk fufgr vf/kdkj gSA

       blesa fcYdqy lansg ugha gS fd ysVlZ isVsV ds [kaM 10 ds v/khu micaf/kr ysVlZ isVsaV vihy esa vihy dk vf/kdkj] tks ewy vf/kdkj gS] laiqfVr gSA mls varj&Uk;ky;hu vihy eku dj mldk vFkZ U;wu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 540 vuqlfjrA

        ¿ iSjk 8À

       ¼4½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && vihy && rF;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk fof/k ds iz‘u ij Hkh lquh tkrh gS && og U;k;ky; dh vkarfjd izfØ;k gSA 1996 ,e ih ,y ts 1096 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9À

       ¼5½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k ds fofu‘p;u ds fo#) vihy && izek.ki= vko‘;d ugha gSA 1967 ts ,y ts 569 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7À

       ¼6½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && vihy && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 100 ds v/khu rF;r% f}rh; vihy ugha gS && og dsoy fof/k ds iz‘u ij ugha gksrhA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 2048 rFkk flfoy vihy Ø- 232@61 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10À

       ¼7½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && vihy && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 96 && ysVlZ isVsaV vihy lquus okyh U;k;ihB && rF;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk fof/k ds iz‘u ij izFke vihy lquus okyh ,dy U;k;ihB ds leku vf/kdkj izkIr gSA 1979 ts ,y ts 67 voyafcrA

        ¿ iSjk 11À

       ¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 rFkk 101 && ysVlZ isVsaV vihy && [kaM 10 && /kkjk 100 rFkk 101 ds v/khu U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr ij vf/kjksfir ifjlhek && ysVlZ isVsaV vihy lquus okyh U;k;ihB dks ykxw ugha dh tk ldrhA 1979 ts ,y ts 180 rFkk , vkb vkj 1974 mM+hlk 162 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 12À

       ¼9½ vihy && dk;Zokgh ds vkjaHk ls gh fufgr vf/kdkj gS && Nhuk ugha tk ldrk tc rd lqO;Dr vf/kfu;fefr vFkok vko‘;d vk‘k; ugha gksA

       vihy dk vf/kdkj dsoy izfØ;k dk fo"k; ugha gSA og ewy vf/kdkj dk fo"k; gSA voj vf/kdj.k dks fofu‘p; ls ofj"B vf/kdj.k dks vihy dk ;g vf/kdkj U;k;ky; esa izFker% dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus rFkk mlds }kjk fofu‘p; fd, tkus ls iwoZ i{kdkj esa fufgr gks tkrk gSA ,slk fufgr vf/kdkj Nhuk ugha tk ldrk tc rd lqO;Dr vf/kfu;fefr vFkok vko‘;d vk‘k; ugha gksA , vkb vkj 1964 .; ;j 489] , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 221 rFkk , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 540 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14] 15 ,oa 17À

       ¼10½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && fdlh Hkh fofu‘p; dk rdkZ/kkj && ml ekeys ds rF;ksa dh i`"BHkwfe esa le>k tkuk gksxkA

       fdlh Hkh fofu‘p; dk fu.kZ;&vk/kkj ml ekeys ds rF;ksa dh i`"BHkwfe esa le>k tkuk gksxkA cgqr igys&gh dgk x;k gS fd dksbZ Hkh ekeyk dsoy ml ckr ds fy, izkf/kdkjiw.kZ fu.kZ; gS tks mlesa okLro esa fofuf‘pr fd;k x;k gS] mlls rdZlaxr :i ls fudyus okyh ikfj.kkfed ckrksa ds fy, ughaA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1073 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 23À

       ¼11½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; && mlesa fofuf‘pr izfriknuk ds fy, izkf/kdkjiw.kZ fu.kZ; gSA

       bl U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; mlesa fofuf‘pr izfriknuk ds fy, izkf/kdkjiw.kZ fu.kZ; gS] mlds fy, ugha tks mlesa fofuf‘pr ugha gS vFkok ftl ij jk; O;Dr djus dk U;k;ky; dks volj ugha feyk gSA ¼2002½ 4 ,l lh lh 45 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 24À

       U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ;g foospuk fd, fcuk gh rF;kRed ifjfLFkfr fdl izdkj voyafcr fofu‘p; dh rF;kRed ifjfLFkfr ds vuq:i gS] fofu‘p;ksa dk voyac ugha fy;k tkuk pkfg,A U;k;ky;ksa dh leqfDr;k¡ u ;wfDyM ds izesa;ksa dh Hkk¡fr i<+h tkuk pkfg,] u dkuwu ds mica/kksa dh Hkk¡fr ghA 2002 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 500 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 25À

       ¼12½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && fudV lk–‘; && i;kZIr ugha && dsoy ,d egRoiw.kZ C;kSjs ls laiw.kZ vofLFkfr cny ldrh gSA

       izR;sd ekeys vius&gh rF;ksa ij fuHkZj gksrk gS rFkk ,d ekeys vkSj nwljs ekeys esa fudV lk–‘; i;kZIr ugha gS D;ksafd dsoy ,d egRoiw.kZ C;kSjs ls laiw.kZ vofLFkfr cny ldrh gSA ,sls ekeys fofuf‘pr djus esa ¼dksMksZtks ds dFkukuqlkj½ ,d ekeys dk jax nwljs ekeys ds jax ls feyk dj ekeys fofuf‘pr djus izyksHk ls cpuk pkfg,A vr%] ;g fofuf‘pr djus ds fy, fd ekeyk js[kk ds fdl vksj vkrk gS] nwljs ekeys ls ekSVs rkSj ij lk–‘; fcYdqy fofu‘pk;d ugha gSA----- iwoZ fu.kZ; dk dsoy ogk¡ rd vuqlj.k djuk pkfg, tgk¡ rd U;k; dk iFk iz‘kLr gksrk gks] ijarq futhZo dk"B dkV nsuk pkfg, rFkk ik‘oZ&‘kk[kk,¡ Nk¡V nsuk pkfg, vU;Fkk >kfM+;ksa vkSj ‘kk[kkvksa esa iFkHkz"V gks tk,¡xsA esjk fuosnu U;k;&iFk dks ,slh :dkoVksa ls eqDr j[kus dk gS ftuls mlesa ck/kk vk ldrh gSA 2002 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 500 vuqlfjrA

       ¿ iSjk 10À

       ¼13½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100d && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2002 && /kkjk 16 && ysVlZ isVsaV vihy dk fufgr vf/kdkj && 2002 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16 ds v/khu O;ko`fÙk [kaM ds vHkko esa Hkh iw.kZr% fujk—r vFkok U;wu ugha gqvk gSA ¼2002½ 2 ,l lh lh 536 izHksfnrA 2002¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 504 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 26À

       ¼14½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2002 && /kkjk 16¼2½ && ‘‘kCnksa **lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 dh /kkjk 6 ds mica/k dh O;kidrk dks izfrdwyr% izHkkfor fd, fcuk** dk iz;ksx && bl vfHkO;fDr ls mÙkjorhZ mica/kks esa varfoZ"V fdlh Hkh ckr ls && iwoZorhZ mcia/k ds vFkZ dh O;kidrk de gksuk vk‘kf;r ughaA ¿ iSjk 12À

       ;fn la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16 dk voyksdu fd;k tk, rc /;ku nsus ;ksX; ckr ;g gS fd mi/kkjk ¼2½ esa fo/kku&eaMy }kjk ‘‘kCn **lk/kkj.k [kaM fcuk** iz;qDr fd, x, gS---- ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd tc ;g vfHkO;fDr iz;qDr gksrh gS rc bl vfHkO;fDr ls mÙkjnk;h mica/kks esa varfoZ"V fdlh Hkh ckr ls iwoZorhZ mica/k ds vFkZ dh O;kidrk de gksuk vk‘kf;r ugha gSA ¼1970½ 2 ,l lh lh 567 vuqlfjrA 1980 ts ,y ts 338 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 27 ,oa 28À

       ¼15½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 47 && vkns‘k dh *fMØh* cukus ds fy, l`ftr dYiuk && fof/kekU; fo/kku }kjk lqLi"V ‘‘kCnksa esa gVkbZ xbZ && bl izdkj vihy dk vf/kdkj Nhu fy;k x;kA 1990 ts ,y ts 422 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 589 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 29 ,oa 30À

       ¼16½ ysVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 10 && ,dy U;k;ihB }kjk izdh.kZ vihy esa vk- 43 fu- 1 ds v/khu vkns‘k ikfjr && ysVlZ isVsaV vihy xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrhA 1995 ts ,y ts 141 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 3335 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 31À

JUDGMENT

Misra, J. -- The term 'Law' is applied and taken recourse to herald the incandescent attributes of civilisation with stupendous felicity and the advancement of society is conditioned by the appropriate legal evolution. Sometimes the law is conceived as 'jus naturale', at times as 'juscivile' and some other times it is equated with 'jus honorarium'. But the term 'jus' is always important. 'Jus' should never succumb to 'Joss'. That is why it has been said that the law is not the study of words alone but a penetration into the study of nature within and nature without which are projected through words that have the moving power of life. For that simple pure reason, William Shakespeare spoke: ''The Law hath not been dead, though it hath slept. "We have embarked upon the subject with the aforesaid prefatory note as our essay and venture is to find out whether by substitution of section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') the Legislature, by taking recourse to dexterous method, has completely obfuscated the rights of' a litigant to maintain a Letters Patent Appeal in invocation of clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree or order passed by a learned Single Judge from an original appellate decree or order or still there is some arena which is saved, being unaffected. In this setting, we are obliged to cogitate to find out the legitimate and purposive acceptation of the provision in question.

2. Before we enter into the spectrum of rumination we think it seemly to exposit briefly the factual context in regard to travelling of the matter to a larger Bench. In LPA No. 461/2000, defensibility of the judgment and decree dated 19.6.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in the First Appeal No. 50/96 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1996 passed by the learl1ed First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad was- called in question. When the said appeal was listed I for hearing, Mr. Divesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, placing reliance on the amended provision, i.e. section 100A of the Code that has been brought on the statute book by The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (in short 'the Amending Act'), and the decision rendered by a Division Bench in LPA No. 31191 (Sachish Chandra Jain and another v. Shri Bhagwan and others) since reported in 2002 (II) MPJR 138 = 2002 (3) MPLJ 504, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed on that score. The Division Bench hearing the matter thought it apposite that the decision rendered in the case of Sachish Chandra Jain (supra) required consideration by a larger Bench. It is appropriate to state here that in the case of Sachish Chandra Jain (supra), the Division Bench had dismissed the LPA pending for more than a decade before this Court as not maintainable. In this factual backdrop the matter has been referred to the larger Bench and is before us.

3. The cardinal issue that arises for studied deliberation is whether the introduction of section 100A of the Code, which has come into effect on 1.7.2002, atrophies the pending appeals preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent and also effaces the right of filing such appeals after the said cut-off date, or the amendment does not guillotine the pending appeals prior to coming of the aforesaid provision but does decimate and nullify the right of such preferring of appeal after the said provision was brought on the statute' book.

4. Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. G. Mukhopadhyay for the appellant assiduously contended that the decision rendered in the case of Sachish Chandra Jain (supra) does not correctly lay down the law inasmuch as it has held that an appeal preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal being an intra-Court appeal, is not an appeal as is ordinarily understood and, therefore, is not a vested right though an appeal preferred in aid of the Letters




















































































































































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top