T.RAMABHADRAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sansar Chand – Respondent
2. When this appeal came up for hearing at Chamba on the 9th ultimo, three preliminary objections were raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to its competency. (A) The memorandum of appeal was not properly signed or presented, since Shri L. N. Sethi was not the Government Advocate of Chamba at the relevant period. (B) Talbana had not yet been paid. (C) The appeal was time-barred because when it was presented to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Chamba (on behalf of this Court) on 29-11-1957, there was a deficiency of Rs. 351/8/- in court-fees - which deficiency was made good as late as 9-7-1958, i.e. long after the expiry of the limitation period.
3
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.