Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.32 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 24 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 5 in Kerala High Court Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra Court-fees Act.
Manual Joseph Antony vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 20 August, 2015
16. The scope of appeal before a Division Bench, from the
judgment of a single judge in exercise of the appellate
jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of
original jurisdiction by a subordinate court as envisaged under
Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act was considered by a
Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in 1968
KLT 485 (Manual v. Revenue Inspector) and observed that
the amendment made to Section 5, as per Act 6 of 1966, had to
be considered for proper appreciation. After quoting the
provision, which was in existence prior to the amendment, the
Bench observed that, from the context it would appear that the
word 'order" in sub-section(ii) of Section 5 of the Kerala High
M.F.A.No.88 OF 2015
21
Court Act was intended to include only an order passed in a suit
or civil proceeding and that collocation of the words 'decree or
order ' lends support to this construction.
S. Narayanaswami vs Padma And Anr. on 8 November, 1971
15. A similar issue as involved in the present case, i.e. as to
whether any appeal is maintainable to a Division Bench from an
order passed by a Single Bench, in an application for transfer of a
criminal case had come up for consideration before a Bench of
this Court and as per the decision in 1972 KLT 7(S.
Narayanaswami vs. Padma), it was held that no such appeal
would be maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act. The said finding was rendered, also after making a
M.F.A.No.88 OF 2015
20
reference to the decision of the Division Bench in 1957 KLT
1221 (cited supra) and observing that, as held in the latter case,
the term "original jurisdiction" is well understood and comprises
those matters, of which the court takes cognizance as a court of
first instance.
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
17. Applying the rule in Heyden's case, as approved by the
Apex Court in AIR 1955 SC 661 (Bengal Immunity Co. vs.
State of Bihar), the reason for making the amendment to
understand the meaning of the word 'order' in the sub-section, it
was observed that the amendment was made to remove the
anomaly existed in the pre-amended provision, where there was
no provision for an appeal in respect of a decree or order made
by a subordinate court in exercise of its original jurisdiction and
the existing provision was to provide appeal to Division Bench of
two Judges from a judgment of a single judge, in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the
appellate jurisdiction by a subordinate court, where the judge
who passed the judgment declared that the case was fit one for
appeal. It was accordingly held that there was no right of appeal
M.F.A.No.88 OF 2015
22
under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act to a Division
Bench. But since the said decision was rendered with reference
to Sec.5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act and since the provision
sought to be relied on in the present case is Sec.5(i) i.e. in
respect of an order passed by a single Judge of this Court in
exercise of its original jurisdiction, the dictum in 1968 KLT 485
cited by the learned Prosecutor is not having much application as
such.