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

1994 Supreme(Kar) 339

H.N.TILHARI
N. CHANDRASEKHAR – Appellant
Versus
PAPAMMA – Respondent


Advocates:
B.S.SUBBARAMU, KRISHNA S.DIXIT

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant. The cause for delay in re-filing the appeal has been stated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit:"that I have filed the above appeal on 30-5-1994 personally on the instructions of my Counsel. The office returned the papers on 15-6-1994 with some objections. My Counsel wrote to me in the third week of June asking me to visit his office in the first week of July to comply with the office objections. Since my father had expired leaving a big vacuum in the family, I had to set right the things in my family. I had no money even to pay for the Court fees, etc. I had to admit my children to school. I had to repay the debts incurred for the hospitalisation of my father". The allegation in paragraph 2 firstly shows that the appellant's father had died during the period he had to refile the appeal and as he had to set right the things in his family and to meet the expenses of the litigation, as the appellant was in difficulty on account of paucity of funds. He has stated that he had no money to pay even the Court fee etc. He has further stated that he had to admit his children to school and had to repay the debts incurred for the hos





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