LexTERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMAR versus S.M. KANTHA RAJU (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2017] 7 S.C.R. 676 TERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMAR v. S.M. KANTHA RAJU (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3215 of2010) B AUGUST 16,2017 [R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.J Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001: s.23 - Petition under - Territorial jurisdiction for - C Determination of - Held: s.23 enables the person aggrieved to file an application in the "District Court concerned" - The-expression "District Court" having not been defined in the 2001 Act (i.e. special Act), it must necessarily take with it all the trappings that go along with a District Court that is established under the general law (i.e. D E F C.P. C.) - Therefore, for determining territorial jurisdiction of District Court, provisions of C.P.C. would apply - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 20. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 is a consolidating statue which applies to the whole of the State of Andhra P/adesh on and from 10.12.2001. Prior to this Act, the Societies Registration Act, 1860 applied to the Andhra Region of the State, whereas the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1940 applied to the Telangana Area. Section 11 of the 1940 Act is pari materia with Section 23 of the 2001 Act. The scheme of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on the one hand, and that of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Act, 1840 and the consolidating Act, 2001 on the other is completely different. On the one hand, the 1860 Act refers the dispute that arises under Section 13 only to the Principal Court G of original civil jurisdiction of the District in which the chief building of the Society is situate. Under this Act therefore, jurisdiction is confined to one court and one court only : that is the principal court of original civil jurisdiction where the actual physical main building of the society is situate. On the other hand, Section 11 of the 1940 Act and Section 23 of the 2001 Act H 67G TERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMAR v. S.M. KANTHA RAJU 677 (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. enable the person aggrieved to file an application in the "District A Court concerned". [Paras 10, 12) [681-E; '682-E, Fl 2. Where the expression "District Court" is not defined by the special enactment in which it occurs, it must necessarily take with it all theJrappings that go along with a District Court that is established under the general law. This would necessarily mean B that the provisions applicable to District Courts generally would apply, and that therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it comes to determining the jurisdiction of such District Court, would necessarily apply. [Para 13) [682-G; 683- A) c 3. The impugned judgment is wrong on two counts. First, in applying the definition of "the Court" to "District Court" mentioned in Section 23, and then concluding that it would refer only to the principal Court of original .iurisdiction of one particular place. It is also wrong in staling that as the 2001 Andhra Pradesh Act is a special enactme11t, general principles applicable under D the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply. [Para 18) (685-G, H; 686-A) National Sewing Thread Col Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. [1953) SCR 1028 - relied on. Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. and Others v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., and Others (1994) 1 SCC 34 : [1993) 2 Suppl. SCR 645 - held inapplicable. Case Law Hcfcrence (1953) SCR 1028 relied on Para 14 [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR645 held inapplicable Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3215 of2010. E F From the final Judgmmt and Order dated 19.09.2006 of the G High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 791 of2005. Sridhar Potaraju, Prabhat Kumar, Ms.Ankita Sharma, Siddhartha Thalukdar, Advs. for the Appellant. H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Vismai Rao, K. Sharat Kumar, Ms. Savita Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Ab hay Pratap Singh, Vi pin Nair, P.B. Suresh, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of a B judgment oftheAndhra Pradesh High Court dated 19.09.2006, in which it has construed Section 23 oftheAndhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 200 l, as referring only to the Principal District Court of the place where the society is registered. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.