Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
LATHEESH VALANGI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ARREAR RECOVERY) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the judgment based on facts not previously raised. (Para 1) |
| 2. impugned orders argued based on failure to sign. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on jurisdiction of appeal. (Para 3) |
| 4. appeal cannot proceed on unestablished facts. (Para 5) |
| 5. withdrawal of appeal and implications for future. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.20384/2023; but concedes that the singular issue impelled herein had not been raised, much less argued, before the learned Single Judge.
2. Sri.S.Anil Kumar – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that it had been omitted to be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the impugned orders, as far as his client’s case is concerned, had not been signed by the Authorities, either physically or digitally; and consequently that this contention had not been considered or answered in the judgment assailed. He argued that, nevertheless, his client is entitled to raise this aspect before this Court for the first time, since it is one edificed on the law alone.
3. We are taken aback by the submissions afore because, normally a judgment can be tes
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
