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

1984 Supreme(Pat) 72

SHIVANUGRAH NARAIN
State Of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Dhajadhari Rai – Respondent


Judgment

1. Heard. The present appeal was filed on 10-4-1981. Admittedly, the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 27-3-81. The appellant filed this present application for condoning the delay on 30-8-83. The question is whether there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on 27-3-81 and prior to 27-3-81. According to the appellant-State of Bihar, the delay was due to observing all the formalities which had to be done in the offices of the State of Bihar before the filing of the appeal. It appears that prior to 27-3-81, the Law Secretary to the State Government had referred the matter to the Advocate General and the opinion of the Law Officer of the State Government was sent to the Law Department, the file appears to have been received back in the Law Department on 24-3-81, and though the Officers of the Law Department must be credited with the knowledge that the appeal would become time barred, if it was not filed till 27-3-81, the file was not sent to the office of the Advocate General for filing the appeal till after 6-4-81. The explanation given for this period in the petition and the supplementary affidavits is that the Law Secretary was busy in some important wo


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