Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Soorjmukhi Koer

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 16, 1877
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/851682

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Privy Council's Appeals Act (VI of 1874), Section 11 - Deposit of Costs of Appeal--Power to enlarge time. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Soorjmukhi Koer

Legal References

Reported In
(1877)ILR2Cal272

Excerpt

privy council's appeals act (vi of 1874), section 11 - deposit of costs of appeal--power to enlarge time. - richard garth, c.j.1. we consider that we may answer both those questions by saying that the requirements of section 11 as to the deposit of costs are not absolutely imperative. had they been so, this court would not have any power to modify them. but we think they are not so. there is no provision similar to that in section 10 requiring the petition to be dismissed in case of default. we think, therefore, that the court has some discretion, and that it would be in all cases a reasonable exercise of that discretion, if, when the period for making the deposit expires on a day when the offices of the court are closed, the deposit were allowed to be made on the day that the offices re-open.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We consider that we may answer both those questions by saying that the requirements of Section 11 as to the deposit of costs are not absolutely imperative. Had they been so, this Court would not have any power to modify them. But we think they are not so. There is no provision similar to that in Section 10 requiring the petition to be dismissed in case of default. We think, therefore, that the Court has some discretion, and that it would be in all cases a reasonable exercise of that discretion, if, when the period for making the deposit expires on a day when the offices of the Court are closed, the deposit were allowed to be made on the day that the offices re-open.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Soorjmukhi Koer vs Same Subject Civil Same Judge Richard Garth, C.J., ;Macpherson and ;Markby, JJ.
Civil

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales