Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.93 seconds)
Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023 cites

Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. ... vs Dabhol Power Company on 31 March, 2004

In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Co. In that case, the High Court took the view that despite the amendment in Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, order passed by the Single Judge in appeal arising out of the order passed by CLB under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, appeal lay to the Division Bench and in that connection, the Division Bench invoked Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force and, therefore, the Division Bench concluded that the letters patent appeal is a statutory appeal and special enactment. Therefore, appeal shall lie to the Division Bench. We regret to say that this is not the correct position of law. We have already explained the facts above and we have explained Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to indicate that the power was specifically taken away by the legislature. Therefore, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. cannot be said to be the correct proposition of law.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 17 - R M Lodha - 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