SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 291

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, G.P.MATHUR
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
HEERA N. GURNANIS – Respondent


ORDER

1. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT AT ALLAHABAD IN EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, PASSED THE ORDER ON 27-7-1994 DECLARING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER THE U.P. IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LANDHOLDINGS ACT, 1960 REGARDING SURPLUS LAND AS A NULLITY AS THE PROPERTY INVOLVED THEREIN WAS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED BY THE COURT. THIS ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WAS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN BY FILING A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THIS COURT. IN THAT SLP, BEING SLP (C) NO. 9401 OF 1995, THIS COURT OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HEREIN OUGHT TO HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT INSTEAD OF FILING AN SLP. ACCORDINGLY, THE SLP WAS DISMISSED ON 1-11-1996. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT STATE PREFERRED SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 1997 BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AT ALLAHABAD. THE DIVISION BENCH, BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, HELD THAT THERE WAS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE APPELLANT HAD NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY OR GOOD REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND THUS DISMISSED THE SPECIAL APPEAL. AGG




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top