Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.87 seconds)Article 278 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Amending Act, 1897
Birat Chandra Dagara vs Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 18 March, 2005
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.
P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs vs Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors on 7 October, 2004
24. The Supreme Court in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank , held in paragraph 30, page 5177 of the report that by Section 100A which was introduced by 2002 amendment "a specific exclusion was provided". It was made clear in the said paragraph "that now by virtue of Section 100A no Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable". It may be noted that in P.S. Sathappan the issue was interpretation of Section 104 of the Code visa-vis Clause 15 of the Letters Patent but even then those observations was clearly made in connection with Section 100A of the Code.
The South India Corporation(P) Ltd vs The Secretary, Board Of ... on 13 August, 1963
In South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, (at paragraph 19, page 215 of the report) the Hon'ble Court held:
V.N.N. Panicker vs Narayan Pati And Ors. on 21 July, 2006
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.
Kesava Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2003
Therefore, where appeal has been decided from an original order by a single Judge, no further appeal has been provided and that power which used to be there under the Letters Patent of the High Court has been subsequently withdrawn. The present order which has been passed by CLB and against that an appeal has been provided before the High Court under Section 10-F of the Act, that is, an appeal from the original order. Then in that case no further letters patent appeal shall lie to the Division Bench of the same High Court. This amendment has taken away the power of the Letters Patent in the matter where the learned single Judge hears an appeal from the original order...(pages 628-629 of the report).
Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors on 11 August, 2006
In Kamal Kumar Dutt v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 613 : 2006 AIR SCW 4594 the Supreme Court, after referring to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Kamla Devi à Appellant vs Khushal Kanwar & Anr. à Respondents on 15 December, 2006
Recently also the Supreme Court in Kamala Devi v. Khushal Kanwar , held that only a Letters Patent Appeal filed prior to coming into force of the 2002 Amendment Act would be maintainable. (See para 20 at page 667 of the report).