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

1956 MarsdenLR 265

MATHEW, WHYATT, BUHAGIAR
CHAN TAI TAI – Appellant
Versus
OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE FM – Respondent


Advocates:
SDK Peddie for the applicants.
MG Neal for the respondent.

JUDGMENTBY: BUHAGIAR J

(delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal) : -- This is an application for an extension of time for the filing of notice of appeal against the judgment given on a motion by the Official Assignee. The notice of appeal was rejected by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on the ground that under Rule 88(b) of the Bankruptcy Rules 1921 the time for entering the appeal and serving notice thereof is fixed at fourteen days from the date of signing, entering or otherwise perfecting the judgment or order appealed.

The ground of appeal as stated in the affidavit filed by the solicitors for the appellant is that under section 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1948 it is provided that the provisions of the Schedule thereto shall apply to all matters and proceedings in the Court of Appeal and under Rule 11 of the Schedule it is provided that the period for bringing an appeal shall be one month from the date on which the judgment or order appealed against was pronounced, and in the present case the notice of appeal was presented for filing more than fourteen days but less than one month after the date of the judgment.

On behalf of the applicant it was submitted t

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