Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau VS Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co. ...

Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau VS Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co. - 2005 3 Supreme 367 : Under Order XLI Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in an appeal against a decree for payment of money, the appellant must deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Appellate Court may think fit. The Appellate Court has discretion to permit the furnishing of security instead of requiring a cash deposit, and this discretion must be exercised judicially based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The security may include immovable property, as demonstrated by the appellant having already furnished security of immovable property to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The requirement of deposit or security is a condition precedent for the Appellate Court to stay the execution of the decree.Checking relevance for Arti Dixit VS Sushil Kumar Mishra...

Checking relevance for Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited...

Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162 : Under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) can be entertained only if the borrower deposits 50% of the amount of debt due as claimed by the secured creditor or as determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), whichever is less. This deposit, known as a pre-deposit, is not a secured asset or secured debt. The pre-deposit is made with the Tribunal, not with the bank, and the bank has no lien over it. On the disposal of the appeal—whether on merits, on withdrawal, or on being rendered infructuous—the appellant may apply for the refund of the pre-deposit, and it must be returned. The Tribunal may, upon request by the secured creditor and consent of the depositor, appropriate the pre-deposit towards the borrower''''s liability or adjust it against dues. However, if no such appropriation order exists, the deposit must be refunded. The deposit is not governed by Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it does not constitute bailment.Checking relevance for Kanpur Jal Sansthan VS Bapu Construction...

Checking relevance for Shiva Jute Baling LTD. VS Hindley and Co. LTD. ...

Shiva Jute Baling LTD. VS Hindley and Co. LTD. - 1955 0 Supreme(SC) 33 : When an appeal comes to the Supreme Court on the strength of special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution, the order of the Supreme Court granting special leave operates as an admission of the appeal as soon as the conditions in the order—such as furnishing security or making a deposit—are complied with. It is not necessary for the appellant to make a formal application for admission of the appeal in such cases. The duty to ensure that security is furnished or a deposit is made lies with the High Court, which must act in accordance with the directions in the Supreme Court''''s order. The appellant is not responsible for laches in prosecution of the appeal if the Registrar of the High Court fails to issue notice of admission.Checking relevance for Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla VS Sushila Devi...

Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla VS Sushila Devi - 1984 0 Supreme(HP) 65 : Under Order 41, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is applicable to appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, an appellant must deposit the amount in dispute or furnish security as directed by the Appellate Court within a time allowed. The Court has no power to dispense with this requirement but may extend the time for compliance. If the appellant fails to comply, the appeal is not automatically rejected or consigned to the record room, as sub-rule (3) is directory, not mandatory. The appellant may apply for extension of time to make the deposit or furnish security, and such application must be listed before the Court with notice to the decree-holder.Checking relevance for Tamma Venkata Pardhasaradhi VS Tamma Ramachandra Rao...

Checking relevance for PAWAN SINGH @ PAWAN KUMAR SINGH VS RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHIVHARE...

PAWAN SINGH @ PAWAN KUMAR SINGH VS RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHIVHARE - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2144 : Under Order XLI, Rule 5(3) and (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an appellant seeking a stay of execution of a money decree must deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish security for the due performance of the decree. The appellate court has discretion to grant time to the appellant to either deposit the decretal amount or furnish security. The court may not reject a stay application solely for non-compliance with these provisions unless it has first exercised its discretion by fixing a time limit for compliance. The requirement to furnish security or deposit money is not a strict condition precedent but a matter within the appellate court''''s discretion, which must be exercised judicially. The court may allow time for the appellant to comply with the requirement before rejecting the stay application.

• Form for furnishing security before appeal court - The Civil Procedure Code prescribes a specific form (Form 126) for notice of security for costs in appeals, which must be strictly followed. Non-compliance with this form can lead to the appeal being abated or rejected ["SIVAGURUNATHAN v. DORESAMY et al."].
• Notice of security and timing - The notice must be given forthwith after filing the appeal, and it should be served properly, either in person or via proper process, to avoid irregularities or invalidity ["ASIYA UMMA v. KACHI MOHIDEEN"], ["THENUWARA v. THENUWARA"]. The notice should be addressed to the respondent personally and signed by the appellant to be valid ["ASIYA UMMA v. KACHI MOHIDEEN"].
• Form and method of security - Security can be furnished through various means, including cash deposits, bonds hypothecating property, or mortgage of immovable property. The form should align with the statutory requirements, and bonds hypothecating money must be executed before the court or its secretary ["AHAMADULEBBAI v. JUBARIUMMAH"], ["DE SILVA v. SEENATHUMMA et al."].
• Acceptance and approval of security - The court has the authority to approve security in the form proposed, provided it complies with the statutory requirements. The court can also exercise discretion to relax formalities if substantial conformity is present ["DE SILVA v. DE SILVA"], ["MENDIS v. JINADASSA et al."].
• Special provisions for Crown and government - The Crown or government entities are often exempt from furnishing security for costs, and this practice is generally accepted ["KEKULAWALA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL"].
• Implications of non-compliance - Failure to comply with prescribed procedures, such as submitting notices in the correct form or within the required time, can result in the abatement of the appeal or rejection of security ["SIVAGURUNATHAN v. DORESAMY et al."], ["SAMEEN v. ABEYAWICKREMA"].
• Relief and irregularities - Courts may grant relief for irregularities or defects in the security process if substantial compliance is demonstrated, but strict adherence to prescribed forms and procedures is preferred ["DE SILVA v. DE SILVA"], ["MENDIS v. JINADASSA et al."].

Analysis and Conclusion:The proper procedure for furnishing security before an appeal court involves strict compliance with the Civil Procedure Code's prescribed form (Form 126), timely service of notice forthwith, and execution of security in an acceptable form such as cash, bonds, or mortgage. Non-compliance with these formalities can jeopardize the appeal, leading to abatement or rejection. Courts retain some discretion to relax procedural irregularities if substantial conformity exists, but adherence to statutory requirements is essential to preserve the right to appeal ["RANASINGHE v. PIERIS"], ["DE SILVA v. DE SILVA"].