Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Nandini J. Shah

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 161

DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, A. M. KHANWILKAR
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Nandini J. Shah – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the status of the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: is he a persona designata or a pre-existing Civil Court? What remedies lie for challenging an order passed under Section 9: is Article 227/ writ under Article 226 the proper remedy, and is intra-court Letters Patent Appeal maintainable? What is the proper forum and mode of challenging the appellate order: can a Division Bench entertain a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge’s writ order under Articles 226/227, and what is the correct constitutional remedy?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the status of the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: is he a persona designata or a pre-existing Civil Court?

What remedies lie for challenging an order passed under Section 9: is Article 227/ writ under Article 226 the proper remedy, and is intra-court Letters Patent Appeal maintainable?

What is the proper forum and mode of challenging the appellate order: can a Division Bench entertain a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge’s writ order under Articles 226/227, and what is the correct constitutional remedy?

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The seminal question posed in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the order passed by the City Civil Court in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as an Appellate Officer, is in the capacity of a Civil Court or persona designata?

2. When this special leave petition was listed for admission on 12.09.2017, the Court passed the following order :

“Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Sonal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
As the issue was to be debated with regard to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, learned Solicitor General has placed reliance on Radhey Shyam & Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423 and Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 533.
Ms. Sonal, learned counsel representing the respondents, would contend that there is no quarrel about the proposition that when a challenge is made to the order passed by the Civil Court in a writ proceeding, it has to be treated as a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no Let

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 161

DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, A. M. KHANWILKARLife Insurance Corporation of India – AppellantVersusNandini J. Shah – Respondent

What is the status of the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: is he a persona designata or a pre-existing Civil Court?

What remedies lie for challenging an order passed under Section 9: is Article 227/ writ under Article 226 the proper remedy, and is intra-court Letters Patent Appeal maintainable?

What is the proper forum and mode of challenging the appellate order: can a Division Bench entertain a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge’s writ order under Articles 226/227, and what is the correct constitutional remedy?

Cases Referred (27)

DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, A. M. KHANWILKAR
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Nandini J. Shah – Respondent