TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: LPAs Limited Post-2002 Amendment</h1> <h3>MOHD. SAUD & ANOTHER Versus DR. (MAJ.) SHAIKH MAHFOOZ & OTHERS</h3> MOHD. SAUD & ANOTHER Versus DR. (MAJ.) SHAIKH MAHFOOZ & OTHERS - 2010 (14) SCR 84, 2010 (13) SCC 517, 2010 (11) SCALE 283 Issues:1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against judgment of Single Judge of High Court.2. Interpretation and application of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).3. Effect of subsequent enactments on the right of appeal.4. Consistency in appellate procedures and reduction of appeals.Issue 1: Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against judgment of Single Judge of High Court:The Supreme Court considered the maintainability of an LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court. The case involved conflicting opinions on whether an LPA is maintainable post the amendment of Section 100-A CPC. The Full Bench held that after the introduction of Section 100-A in 2002, no LPA shall lie against the judgment or order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal. The Court referred to previous decisions and upheld that only LPAs filed before the amendment would be maintainable. The Court dismissed the appeals filed after 2002 as not maintainable, emphasizing that an appeal is a creature of statute and can be curtailed by subsequent enactments.Issue 2: Interpretation and application of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):The Court analyzed the language and amendments to Section 100-A CPC. The Section was amended multiple times, with the latest version stating that no further appeal shall lie against the judgment and decree of a Single Judge. The Court noted a contradiction in the Section regarding appeals from original or appellate decrees/orders and judgments that are also decrees. Through a purposive interpretation, the Court concluded that the purpose of Section 100-A was to reduce the number of appeals. Therefore, the Court held that the LPA in question was not maintainable as allowing it would defeat the purpose of curbing excessive appeals.Issue 3: Effect of subsequent enactments on the right of appeal:The Court reiterated that subsequent enactments can curtail or eliminate the right of appeal, citing previous judgments to support this principle. Upholding the validity of Section 100-A CPC, the Court emphasized that litigants do not have a substantive right for a further appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge post the 2002 amendment. The Court agreed with decisions from various High Courts affirming the restriction on LPAs after the amendment.Issue 4: Consistency in appellate procedures and reduction of appeals:The Court emphasized the need for consistency in appellate procedures to prevent multiple appeals against interlocutory orders while limiting appeals against final judgments. By dismissing the appeals and upholding the Full Bench's decision, the Court aimed to maintain the objective of Section 100-A to reduce the number of appeals and prevent undue harassment of litigants. The Court highlighted that the contradictory language in the Section was due to drafting issues and should be interpreted in line with the legislative intent.In summary, the Supreme Court clarified the maintainability of LPAs against judgments of Single Judges post the amendment of Section 100-A CPC, emphasizing the need to reduce appeals and uphold the legislative intent behind the provision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
