• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Only Senior Citizens/Parents Entitled To Prefer Appeal Against Order Of Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007: Madras High Court

Latest News

Back

Only Senior Citizens/Parents Entitled To Prefer Appeal Against Order Of Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007: Madras High Court

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  06 Mar 2021     Views:221

In an elegant, exemplary, eloquent, and effective judgment titled K Raju v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. No. 29988 of 2019, the Madras High Court has rightly, remarkably, and recently on 19 February 2021 held that only senior citizens/parents are entitled to file an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. It must be mentioned here that while holding thus, a Division Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that any aggrieved party to an order passed under the Act can file an appeal under Section 16. Very rightly so!

                              At the outset, it is stated in the prayer by the petitioner that, “Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that any aggrieved party to an order passed under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, Act No.56 of 2007, can file an Appeal under Sec.16(1) of the said Act, with reference to the case in Balbir Kaur v. Presiding Officer-cum-SDM of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa District, Kurukshetra and others dated 29.06.2015 and consequently, direct the 2 nd respondent to take the appeal on file.”

                                      To start with, this notable judgment where the order of the Court was made by Chief Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 and which we must take note of is that “The petition is complete without any basis.”    

              While continuing in a similar vein, the Bench then points out in para 2 that, “A perfectly simple provision lucidly enunciated is sought to be twisted to imply something that it clearly does not permit.”

        To put things in perspective, the Bench then specifies in para 3 that, “The matter pertains to Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Sub-section (1) of such provision permits only any senior citizen or a parent, who is aggrieved by an order of a tribunal passed under such Act, to prefer an appeal to the appellate tribunal. The first proviso to such provision adds that merely because an appeal has been filed by a senior citizen or a parent aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance allowed would not permit the children or relative who are directed to pay the maintenance to suspend the payment of the maintenance as directed. The second proviso enlarges the period of receiving an appeal upon sufficient cause being indicated. Subsection (2) through sub-section (7) of Section 16 of the Act pertain to the conduct of the appeal and do not reflect anything on who may prefer an appeal and who may be regarded as a person aggrieved.”

                          For the sake of clarity, the Bench then makes it a point to state in para 4 that, “Section 16(1) of the said Act of 2007 is quoted:

“16. Appeals.- (1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.” 

                             Needless to say, it is then stated in para 5 that, “The words used in the provision are lucid and, by no stretch of imagination, can such clear words of the statute be read or understood or interpreted to imply that any class of persons other than any senior citizen or a parent may be entitled to prefer an appeal under such provision. The terms “senior citizens” and “parent” are defined in Section 2 of the Act. The word “Tribunal” is also defined to mean the Maintenance Tribunal as constituted under Section 7 of the Act.”

                Significantly, the Bench then observes in para 6 that, “It is elementary that an appeal is a creature of a statute and no right of appeal inheres in any person unless such right is expressly conferred by any statute. It is possible for a right of appeal to be hedged with conditions or even a right of appeal to be granted to a class of persons and not granted to another. It is the wisdom of the legislature to decide what classes of persons would be entitled to the right of appeal and what conditions may be attached to the exercise of such right and how such right may be exercised.”

     More significantly, the Bench then elucidates in para 7 stating that “At the highest, an appellate provision may be assailed as unreasonable as falling foul of the constitutional principles, particularly under Article 14 thereof. But merely because a class of persons has been conferred the right to prefer an appeal while another class may have not been given such right, ipso facto, would not make the appellate provision vulnerable to any challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the right of appeal that inheres in a party to the lis at the time of initiation of the lis may also be subsequently taken away by the legislature, the only caveat being that such a right must be expressly taken away and such right cannot be seen to be extinguished by implication.”

                                 While mentioning about the relevant ruling relied on by the petitioner, the Bench then observes in para 8 that, “The petitioner relies on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported at AIR 2014 P&H 121 (Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India). There is no doubt that such judgment concludes, upon a reading of Section 16 of the Act, that any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal. However, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to concur with the view. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, we respectfully disagree.”

                        Most significantly and most remarkably, what forms the cornerstone of this brilliant judgment is then stated in para 9 wherein it is put forth that, “When the clear words of a statute do not permit any other meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to discover a right in favor of a class of persons excluded by necessary implication in the appellate provision. When the words used in Section 16 of the Act are “Any senior citizen or a parent ... aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may ... prefer an appeal...” and the other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the parent in the alternative, there is no room to imagine that others aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides.”  

                                  Finally, it is then held in the last para 10 that, “In the light of the above and there being no other issue involved, W.P.No.29988 of 2019 is dismissed. It is recorded that the petitioner says that the parties have come to a settlement, but no conclusive finding needs to be rendered in such regard in the context of the present lis and also since the private respondents are not represented. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.29889 and 29890 of 2019 are closed.”

                          To sum it up, the Division Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has very rightly dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that any aggrieved party to an order passed under the Act can file an appeal under Section 16. They have explained in detail also the reasons for doing the same as stated hereinabove. We saw how the Division Bench of Madras High Court was not convinced with the ruling delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India, AIR 2014 P&H 121 and differed with them on the interpretation of Section 16(1) on the right to appeal to any of the affected parties. The Division Bench of Madras High Court rightly held that it is a settled law that an appeal is a creature of a statute and no right of appeal inheres in any person unless such right is expressly conferred by any statute. It rightly observed as stated above which we must repeat now that, “It is possible for a right of appeal to be hedged with conditions or even a right of appeal to be granted to a class of persons and not granted to another. It is the wisdom of the legislature to decide what classes of persons would be entitled to the right of appeal and what conditions may be attached to the exercise of such right and how such right may be exercised.” Very rightly so! Only senior citizens/parents are entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as has been held so very rightly by the Madras High Court in this leading case also!   


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  06 Mar 2021     Views:221

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:5437
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:4871
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:4855
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:4645
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:4671
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4327
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:4698
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:4691
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:4808
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:4988
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:4695
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:4673
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:4626
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:4742
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:4704
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5020
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:4854
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:5681
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:4816
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5160
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5061
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5251
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5106
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5224
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5009
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8376
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:6938
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:6979
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:6778
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:7730
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7076
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:5618
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6392
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:5657
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:5662
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:5907
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:5607
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:5589
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:5640
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:5605
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:5960
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:5465
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:5488
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:5935
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6128
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:5709
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6145
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8106
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6141
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:5806
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:11440
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:5530
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6377
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:5954
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:5654
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:5891
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:5536
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:5983
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:5657
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6105
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6312
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:6539
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:10433
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:5757
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:5621
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:6744
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:5467
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:5483
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7059
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6007
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:5567
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:5609
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:5549
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:7654
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:5827
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:5474
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5325
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6410
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5352
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:5764
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:5606
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5293
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5293
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:5448
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:7878
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:6488
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:5574
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5287
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:5492
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5062
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5276
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5112
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:5705
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:5830
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:5558
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6038
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5342
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:5478
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6061
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:5803
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:95791
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73350
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:70770
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:69908
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59262
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.