Intra-court appeal barred under amended section 100A where a Single Judge decides the appeal, even if proceedings began earlier.

Amended section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a further intra-court appeal where a Single Judge of a High Court has heard and decided an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order. The right of appeal is substantive and vested, but it may be taken away by express words or necessary intendment; the amendment's purpose is to curtail delay and finalise litigation. That restriction applies to Single Judge decisions made on or after 1 July 2002, even if the original proceedings began earlier. In a matter arising under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, no separate provision preserved a Letters Patent Appeal, so the intra-court appeal was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lay against a Single Judge's judgment delivered after the amendment to section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a matter arising under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, where the original proceedings had been instituted before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The amended section 100A uses the words that where an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. The right of appeal is a vested substantive right, but it can be taken away by express words or by necessary intendment. The amended provision was intended to reduce delay and finalise litigation by limiting further appeals. Its language and object show that it applies to appeals decided by a Single Judge on or after 1 July 2002, even if the original proceedings were instituted earlier. The Companies Act, 1956 confers an appeal to the High Court under section 10F, but it does not expressly preserve a further intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's decision. The restriction in section 100A therefore governs the case and bars the Letters Patent Appeal.

Conclusion: The Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

---