Bench:
M Mukherjee, Bijan Kr
Appellant:
N. C. Chatterjee accompanied by Sukumar Ghose
Respondent:
Rajinder Narain
Issue
- Whether Appellants were guilty of serious laches for not filing in the High Court, the copies of the Special Leave Petition as well as of the Order passed upon it, and for not making an application to the Appellate Bench for admission of the Appeal?
Facts
- The Appellants moved the High Court of Calcutta against the decision of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side of that Court. The High Court had affirmed the order.
- The Appellants then approached the Supreme Court, under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) of the Constitution, when they were refused certificate by the High Court.
- The Supreme Court allowed the petition and directed the Appellants to furnish security for costs amounting to Rs. 2500/- within six weeks. Further, the order of Calcutta High Court was stayed on condition that the appellants should deposit an amount of Rs 28000/-.
- The appellants paid both the amounts.
- The respondents wrote to the Registrar of the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court complaining that the Appellants have delayed the prosecution of appeal from proceeding further.
- Responding to the letter, the Registrar said that it is binding on the appellants to make an application before the Appellate Bench of the High Court to make the admission of the appeal and notice should be given to the opposite party under rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. The High Court validated the same.
Appellant’s contentions
- The Appellants stated that the certified copy of the application for Special Leave had been obtained only recently, and therefore, there occurred a delay.
- It was further argued that there the Appellants were not duty bound to make any formal application in the High Court.
- Under Order XXXII, Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, a Supreme Court appeal must be deemed to have been admitted as soon as the Court grants the Special Leave, and as soon as the appellants have acted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court regarding furnishing of security or making of other deposits, the Registrar must issue a notice of the admission of the appeal for service upon the Respondents.
Respondent’s contentions
- It was alleged that the appellants are guilty of inordinate delay in filing in the High Court, the certified copies of the Special Leave petition and the order made by the Supreme Court thereupon.
- They requested that a summons should be issued to the appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-prosecution.
- It was also argued that since the Appellants did not provide satisfactory explanations for the delay, the Appeal should be rescinded.
Relevant Paragraphs (Paragraph Numbers 6, 7, and 9 of the Original Judgement)
- When a High Court grants a certificate of leave to a party to appeal to the Supreme Court, it is that High Court’s duty to retain control and jurisdiction over the subsequent proceedings relating to the prosecution of the appeal till the appeal is finally admitted.
- Unlike other forms of appeal, in an application under Article 136 of the Constitution, the appeal is deemed to be admitted when the Supreme Court passes an order granting special leave provided all the necessary conditions are furnished. Moreover, it is the duty of the competent High Court to see that the conditions are complied with in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court.
Judgement
The Supreme Court affirmed that under Order XXXII, rule 9 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, an Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution could be admitted either by order of the High Court under Order XLV, rule 8 of the CPC or by the order of the Supreme Court itself giving special leave to appeal. Furthermore, it was stated that the Registrar of the Original Side of the, Calcutta High Court should have issued a notice of the admission of the appeal to be served upon the respondents as soon as the Appellants made the necessary security for costs and other deposits of money. In view of the above observations, the Appellants were held not guilty of any serious laches on their part. Accordingly, the Supreme court declared that the leave appeal be granted to the appellants.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
