Skip to main content

Letters Patent appeal would lie only from the judgment passed in exercise of original jurisdiction

In Union Territory Of Jk vs Shahnaza Parveen & Ors, Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been filed by B. K. Singh, IFS, Administrative Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, J&K, challenging the orders dated 19th October 2020, 20th November 2020 and 11th  December 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dealing with the contempt petition CPSW No. 380/2018 arising out of judgment and order dated 12th February 2015 passed by the writ court.."

Dismissing the appeal, the HC held that in State of J&K & Ors vs. Mohd. Tayoub Leharwal and Anr. 2018 (1) JKJ 627 (HC) a Division Bench of this court held that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1997 Right to Appeal is available only against an order or decision of the High Court to punish for contempt. It has further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Chuni Lal Nanda 2006 (5) SCC 399 to hold that under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, an appeal would lie to the Division Bench only from the “judgment” of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of original jurisdiction. The word “judgment” in terms of Clause 12 is undoubtedly a concept of finality in broader sense. It would either be a final judgment, a preliminary judgment or intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment, but it should be a judgment in the sense that it decides some issue or right between the parties finally. The intermediary and interlocutory orders passed during the course of the proceedings which do not determine any right or issue between the parties cannot be said to be a “judgment” amenable to available jurisdiction of the Division Bench under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Infringement of copyright or other rights under the Copyright Act is a cognizable, non-bailable offence

Citation : M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 807 Of 2022;  Date of Judgment/Order : May 20, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, Jj. Background The Appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. The said application was allowed and an FIR was registered against the Respondent. The Respondent in turn prayed before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a non-bailable offence which was allowed. This appeal is against the order of the High Court. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that the short question whi...
Post a Comment
Read more