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

S.MAJUMDAR, D.KARFORMA, M.K.BASU
S. BANDYOPADHYAY – Appellant
Versus
KAMAL KUMAR MITRA – Respondent


Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Sil and Mr. Abhik Dao, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Asutosh Rao, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.K. Basu, President—The petition for condonation of delay filed by the appellant is first taken up for hearing and disposal. We noticed that there is a delay of 176 days in preferring the appeal after receiving the impugned order of the Forum below. Heard argument advanced by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant in the condonation petition that after the impugned judgment was passed on 27.9.2002, no copy of the same was sent to the appellant by the Forum below. He applied for the certified copy on 10.10.2002, but due to Puja Vacation the copy of the judgment could not be collected by the learned Counsel for the appellant. After the Puja Vacation the Advocates took part in cease work, and it continued up to 26.12.2002. So the said copy of the judgment was made available to the appellant by his Advocate on 8.1.2003. Being dissatisfied with the order the appellant consulted his Advocate through Medical Defence Consultancy India (P) Ltd. who were handling the case on behalf of the appellant. Then he was advised to file revision against the above mentioned impugned order. On 1.4.2003 this matter was referred to M/s. Sanderson and Morgans, Advocates by Medical







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