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

1957 Supreme(Cal) 134

Chakrabarti, Das Gupta
Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dilip Kumar Dutta, J.M. Banerjee, Prasun Chandra Ghosh

Judgment

1. THE office has reported the appellant's default in making the initial deposit of Rs. 400 as required by Rule 28 (3) of Chapter VI of the Appellate Side Rules, read with Rule 64 (1. The former of the two Rules to which I have just referred, provides that irrespective of the service of the estimate, the applicant shall deposit a lump sum of Rs. 400 within the time limited by order 45, rule 7 on account of the cost of the preparation of the paper book. As is well known, the settled view of this court is that where order 45, rule 7 applies directly, the court has no power to extend the time, except so far as such extension is authorised by the rule itself. In other words, the court can grant an extension of time up to the maximum limit provided for in order 45, rule 7, but cannot exceed that maximum. Other High Courts have taken a different view, but this court has consistently held that there is no discretion in the court to extend the time limited by order 45, rule 7. If that disability of the Code attaches to the time limited by Rule 28 (3) of Chapter VI of the Appellate Side Rules in terms of order 45, rule 7, we can have no power to grant an extension of time to the app


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