Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.91 seconds)
Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023 cites

Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors on 11 August, 2006

To hold otherwise would run contrary to the plain intendment, as well as the object and underlying purpose of Section 100-A. A similar submission was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital (supra). In introducing the amended provisions of Section 100A, the legislature was concerned as much with the existing backlog of cases as the accretion to the backlog that would accrue by the institution of fresh cases after the amended provisions were brought into LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 40 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 force. Consequently, it would be unreasonable to attribute to the legislature the intendment that while seeking to bring into effect a provision which was intended to cure the delays of litigation, the legislature would have intended to exempt from its purview all cases which have filed prior to the date on which the amendment was brought into force.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 98 - A K Mathur - Full Document

P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs vs Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors on 7 October, 2004

17. The last judgment to be referred to in this behalf is in the case of P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By L.R.s v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors., 2004 (8) SCALE 601. It may, however, be noticed that the appeal decided by the Supreme Court was against the judgment of the High Court dated 22.08.1997 whereby it was held that the Letters LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 94 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 Patent Appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by the single Judge of the High Court sitting in appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the position prior to the amendment of Section 100A would prevail. In such a case, Section 104 of the Code would save the Letters Patent Appeal since out of the three types of orders from which appeals are provided in sub-section (1) of Section 104, the Letters Patent Appeal would fall in the category of appeals provided by any law for the time being in force. There are certain observations which are material even for the present controversy. In para 30 of the judgment while discussing the issue arising from the provisions of Section 100A after the amendment, it was observed that when the Legislature wanted to exclude a Letters Patent Appeal, it specifically did so by the said amendment to Section 100A. This was so since the Legislature was aware that it had incorporated a saving clause in Section 104(1) and incorporated Section 4 in the Code, but for the specific exclusion of the particular wording of the amendment to Section 100A, Letters Patent Appeal would not be barred. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the Legislature had provided for a specific exclusion and, thus, it must be stated that now by virtue of Section 100A, no Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 116 - Cited by 90 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1