Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A case, koppi shetty v. Pamarti venkayamma, where the high court's decision to set aside the concurrent findings of lower courts without formulating a substantial question of law was challenged. The legal issues surrounding the high court's jurisdiction to do so and the implications of the 1976 amendment to the code of civil procedure. The document also includes the supreme court's decision to set aside the high court's judgment and remit the case for a de novo hearing.
Typology: Essays (university)
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
SectionCJudgment KoppiShettyv.PamartiVenkayammaC.A.No. 1165 of 2009 outofSLP(civil)no. 20490 of
Appellant:KoppisettyVenkatRatnam (D)throughLRs Respondent:PamartiVenkayamma SubmittedTo:Dr.AnshuJain Submittedby:GroupNo 5 (L.Lb 5 thsem) Contributionmadeby: Facts:ManpreetKaur( 581 ) LegalIssue:Monisha( 574 ) Judgment:Silky( 572 )&Siddharth( 585 ) Format&Textby:BaldeepKaur( 527 ) Presentationby: Facts&LegalIssues:BaldeepKaur( 527 ) Decision:Jageesha( 503 )
SectionInvolvedinJudgment 100 .Secondappeal.-( 1 )SaveasotherwiseexpresslyprovidedinthebodyofthisCodeor byanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforce,anappealshalllietotheHighCourtfrom every decreepassedinappealbyanycourtsubordinatetotheHighCourt,iftheHighCourtis satisfiedthatthecaseinvolvesasubstantialquestionoflaw. ( 2 )Anappealmaylieunderthissectionfrom anappellatedecreepassedexparte. ( 3 )Inanappealunderthissection,thememorandum ofappealshallpreciselystatethe substantialquestionoflawinvolvedintheappeal. ( 4 )WheretheHighCourtissatisfiedthatasubstantialquestionoflawisinvolvedinanycase, itshallformulatethatquestion. ( 5 )Theappealshallbeheardonthequestionsoformulatedandtherespondentshall,atthe hearingoftheappeal,beallowedtoarguethatthecasedoesnotinvolvesuchquestion: Providedthatnothinginthissub-sectionshallbedeemedtotakeawayorabridgethepower ofthecourttohear,forreasonstoberecorded,theappealonanyothersubstantialquestion oflaw,notformulatedbyit,ifitissatisfiedthatthecaseinvolvessuchquestion." Facts Thisappealisdirectedagainstthejudgmentdated 3. 10. 2007 passedbytheHighCourtof AndhraPradeshatHyderabadinSecondAppealNo. 865 of 1997. Learnedseniorcounselappearingfortheappellantraisedapreliminaryobjectionthatinthe impugnedjudgment,theHighCourthasset-asidetheconcurrentfindingsoffactsoftwo courtswithoutformulatinganysubstantialquestionoflawwhichismandatoryaccordingto Section 100 oftheCodeofCivilProcedureafter 1976 Amendment. LegalIssues WhetherHighCourthasjurisdictiontosetasidetheconcurrentfindingsofthesub ordinatecourtswithoutformulatingasubstantialquestionoflaw or WhetheraHighCourtcanentertainasecondappealwithoutformulatingasubstantial questionoflaw?
(iv)AnotherpartoftheSectionisthattheappealshallbeheardonlyonthatquestion. SupremeCourtDecision TheSupremeCourtset-asidethejudgmentoftheHighCourtandremitthesecondappeal totheHighCourtfordecidingitdenovoonmeritsafterframingthesubstantialquestionof law&directedthepartiestoappearbeforetheHighCourton 16. 3. 2009 .Alsorequestedthe HighCourttodisposeofthesecondappealasexpeditiouslyaspossibletogivetimely justice. Theappealisaccordinglydisposedofleavingthepartiestobeartheirowncosts.
