Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing V.N.N. Panicker vs Narayan Pati And Ors. on 21 July, 2006

Ramesh Chandra Das vs Kishore Chandra Das And Ors. on 22 June, 2007

In V.V.N. Panicker v. Narayan Pati (supra), a Division Bench after noticing the judgment of the Division Bench in Birat Chandra Dagara (supra) and the Supreme Court judgment in P.S. Sathappan (supra) held that the appeal from the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court is not maintainable inasmuch as the order impugned before the learned single Judge of this Court in FAO was passed in 2005 and Section 100A was introduced by way of amendment on 1-7-2002.
Orissa High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Prasanna Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others on 17 January, 2024

"The Division Bench of this Court in the V.N.N. Panicker case (supra) in view of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court in P.S. Sathappan case (supra) held that by virtue of Section 100-A CPC no Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable if the order of the trial Court which was appealed against in an appeal filed under Section 104 CPC was passed after insertion of Section 100- A by amendment which came into force with effect from 1st July, 2002. In view of the fact that the order against which the LPA was filed was passed after 1.7.2002, the Letters Patent Appeal was held to be not maintainable."
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Lal Aged About 55 Years vs Sharwan Kumar Gupta on 4 September, 2023

"7. The Full Bench by the impugned judgment has held that after the introduction of Section 100-A with effect from 1-7-2002, no letters patent appeal shall lie against the judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal. The Full Bench has held that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Birat Chandra Dagra v. Taurian Exim (P) Ltd. [(2006) 11 Ori LR 344 (Ori)] (vide p. 5) does not lay down good law while the decision of the Division Bench in V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patil [(2006) 102 CLT 479 (Cut) : (2006) 2 Ori LR 349 (Ori)] lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document

Mohd.Saud & Anr vs Shaikh Mahfooz & Ors on 25 October, 2010

9. The Full Bench by the impugned judgment has held that after the introduction of Section 100-A with effect from 1.7.2002, no Letters 6 Patent Appeal shall lie against the judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal. The Full Bench has held that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Birat Chandra Dagra vs. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (vide page 5) 2006(11) OLR 344 does not lay down the good law while the decision of Division Bench in V.N.N. Panicker vs. Narayan Patil & Anr. 2006(2) OLR 349 lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100-A w.e.f. 1.7.2002 no LPA shall lie against the order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge even in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - M Katju - Full Document

Sri Sri Durgadevi Through Sri Tulsi vs Maharaja Sri Pradeep Chandra Bhanja on 8 April, 2022

5. A careful perusal of the judgment in Mahammed Saud v. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz (supra) would reveal that a Larger Bench came to be constituted in view of the conflicting views taken in Birat Chandra Dagara v. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd.2006 (2) OLR 344 which had held that notwithstanding Section 100-A CPC, a second appeal against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal would be maintainable before a Division Bench of the High Court and V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Pati 2006(2) OLR 349 which had taken a view that an LPA was not maintainable against the judgment/order of a learned Single AHO No.48 of 1997 Page 2 of 14 Judge in view of the amendment to Section 100-A CPC.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document

Govind Mavji Gorasiya & 2 vs Velbai Naran Varsani D/O Natha Harji ... on 13 April, 2017

5) 2006(11) OLR 344 does not lay down the good law while the decision of Division Bench in V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patil & Anr. 2006(2) OLR 349 lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100-A w.e.f. 1.7.2002 no LPA shall lie against the order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge even in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R S Reddy - Full Document

Karodhan Devi And Others vs Prem Chand on 21 July, 2017

"7. The Full Bench by the impugned judgment has held that after the introduction of Section 100-A with effect from 1.7.2002, no Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against the judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal. The Full Bench has held that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Birat Chandra Dagra vs. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (vide page 5) 2006(11) OLR 344 (Ori) does not lay down the good law while the decision of Division Bench in V.N.N. Panicker vs. Narayan Patil & Anr. 2006(2) OLR 349(Ori) lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100-A w.e.f. 1.7.2002 no LPA shall lie against the order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge even in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohanlal Chandmal Phafat And Anr vs State Of Maha. Thr Collector, Akola on 1 February, 2018

"7. The Full Bench by the impugned judgment has held that after the introduction of Section 100A with effect from 1.7.2002, no letters patent appeal shall lie against the judgment or order passed by a learned single Judge in an appeal. The Full Bench has held that the decision of the Division bench of the High Court in Birat Chandra Dagra v. Taurian Exim (P) Ltd does not lay down good law while the decision of the Division bench in V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patil lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100A w.e.f. 1.7.2002, no LPA shall lie against the order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge even in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Joshi - Full Document

Sri Jitendra Deo Sinha Aged About 77 ... vs Shambhu Nath Sahay on 17 January, 2024

5) does not lay down good law while the decision of the Division Bench in V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patil [(2006) 102 CLT 479 (Cut) : (2006) 2 Ori LR 349 (Ori)] lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100-A w.e.f. 1-7-2002, no LPA shall lie against the order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge even in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special Act."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... vs Zahiruddin Ansari And Ors on 2 May, 2014

"7. The Full Bench by the impugned judgment has held that after the introduction of Section 100-A with effect from 1-7-2002, no letters patent appeal shall lie against the judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal. The Full Bench has held that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Birat Chandra Dagra v. Taurian Exim (P) Ltd. does not lay down good law while the decision of the Division -Bench in V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patil lays down the correct law. The Full Bench has further held that after the amendment of Section 100-A w.e.f. 1-7-2002, no LPA shall lie against the order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge even in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special Act.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next