2003 (6) TMI 464 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Section 100-A Bars Further Appeals

Gandla Pannala Bhulaxmi Versus Managing Director, Apsrtc

Gandla Pannala Bhulaxmi Versus Managing Director, Apsrtc - 2003 ACJ 2004, AIR 2003 AP 458, 2003 (4) ALT 216, 2003 (3) CTC 667 Issues:- Interpretation of the right of appeal under the Letters Patent Act in light of Section 100-A, C.P.C. for matters arising under special enactments or other instruments having the force of law.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal against the orders of a single Judge under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, leading to an appeal before the single Judge, which was subsequently dismissed, resulting in the current Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).2. The key question was whether the LPA against the single Judge's order was maintainable, considering Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits further appeals from a single Judge's judgment and decree to a Division Bench.3. The court referred to a previous judgment stating that all LPAs filed before 1-7-2002 were maintainable, but post that date, the filing of LPAs was prohibited by the new Act.4. The court analyzed the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure under Act 22 of 2002, specifically focusing on the substitution of Section 100-A. The new provision clearly prohibits further appeals from a single Judge's decision to a Division Bench, irrespective of any other laws or instruments.5. The court emphasized that the legislative declaration in Section 100-A prohibits further appeals against a single Judge's judgment, even if other laws or special enactments provide for such appeals.6. The Division Bench's interpretation highlighted the effect of Section 100-A, emphasizing the prohibition of further appeals against a single Judge's decree or order, whether original or appellate.7. The court reiterated that the prohibition of further appeals applies to all matters, including those arising under special enactments, as Section 100-A is clear and unambiguous in its language.8. While acknowledging that no amendments were made to the Letters Patent itself, the court emphasized that the prohibition on further appeals prevails over any provisions in the Letters Patent or other legal instruments.9. The court rejected the argument that the power of the High Court under the Letters Patent could override the prohibition in Section 100-A, citing a Supreme Court judgment that supported the legislative intent behind such provisions.10. The court distinguished a previous case where the right to file a Letters Patent Appeal was upheld, emphasizing that Section 100-A's prohibition was not considered in that case.11. Referring to another Supreme Court case, the court highlighted the importance of the Letters Patent as the charter of the High Court, but reiterated that Section 100-A's prohibition on further appeals prevails.12. The court concluded that Section 100-A unequivocally takes away the right of appeal under the Letters Patent, even for matters arising under special enactments, as illustrated in the Motor Vehicles Act.13. Ultimately, the court held that the right of appeal under the Letters Patent Act is indeed taken away by Section 100-A of the Code, even for matters governed by special enactments or other legal instruments.14. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in line with the interpretation of Section 100-A and the prohibition on further appeals against a single Judge's decision.