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

2004 Supreme(All) 399

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Nahid – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Appellants : S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents: Nigmendra Shukla.

ORDER

M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.—This appeal has been filed beyond time by one year and one hundred and 84 days. The impugned judgment of the reference court was delivered on 4.12.1998 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. This appeal has been filed on 18.9.2000 along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act.

2. In the affidavit along with the aforesaid application it is stated that information about the judgment dated 4.12.1998 was received from the D.G.C. (Civil) in the office of the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr on

28.12.1998. A letter dated 30.12.1998 was written by the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr to D.G.C. (Civil) for certified copy of the judgment and decree, and also for a legal opinion. The opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil), Bulandshahr was received on 14.1.1999.

3. Thereafter a letter dated 20.1.1999 was written by the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr to the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body for his consent to file an appeal and the consent was received on 2.2.1999. Thereafter, for seeking permission to file an appeal in the High Court a letter dated 10.2.1999 was written to the Secretary, Revenue Department, U. P.

4. In para 5 of the affidavit filed with the de




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