Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC53
..... for the delay in filing the appeal which, therefore, should be condoned.18. accordingly, the delay is condoned, the application under section 5 of the limitation act is allowed and the appeal admitted.19. the respondents are directed to file affidavits-in-opposition to the memo of appeal within three weeks, reply thereto by appellant ..... portion of the said judgment of the supreme court runs as follows: the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the limitation act, 1963, in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the ..... deliberate laches and that the delay should not be condoned and the appeal should be dismissed.7. in support of the application under section 5 of the limitation act, the learned advocate for the applicant has staled the celebrated judgment of the hon'ble supreme court, in collector of land acquisition, anantnag v. mst. katiji .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2008)BC27
..... attachment of the amount lying in the hands of garnishee without hearing the defendants and without complying with the provision of sub-section (13) of section 19 of the rddbfi act, 1993 and the said order of attachment is void. (iii) on 2nd september, 2002, the bank filed evidence of affidavit and also the original document in offence but the tribunal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2008)BC40
..... the tribunal but not actually determined. the appellants, therefore, cannot be legally saddled with the liability of payment of any amount under section 21 of the rddbfi act. moreover, it is further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction, null ..... on record including the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal and the entire fact-situation relating to the provision of section 21 of the rddbfi act in question and having given due regard to the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-appellants, i am inclined to sustain the submissions made on behalf ..... an onerous and weighty business that cares to know its bounds, not where it oversteps its limits.18. i, therefore, find that section 21 of the rddbfi act, 1993, has no application here and no pre-deposit as mandated by section 21 is necessitated.19. accordingly, the appeal is entertained. the respondents are directed to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC158
..... advocate for the petitioners finally submits that there are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the application under section 5 of the limitation act should be allowed and the appeal admitted.6. the respondent opposite parties have questioned the conduct of the appellants in the matter of delay that has occasioned. ..... of the said judgment of the supreme court runs as follows: the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the indian limitation act of 1963, in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by ..... this appeal and the delay should be condoned.15. accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned, the application under section 5 of the limitation act is allowed and the appeal is admitted.16. the respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition to the memorandum of appeal within three weeks from the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC173
..... below. i have also given my mind to the respective submissions of the learned advocates for the both sides.6. in the first place. section 21 of the rddbfi act. 1993, is plainly not applicable in this case. the point is, the impugned order was an ex parte order passed by the learned tribunal below. the setting aside ..... the petitioner-appellant anyway though the same is an ex parte decree and that the appellant is required to make the mandatory pre-deposit under section 21 of the said act. it is further contended that as a government company fully owned by the central government, the appellant has the obligation to immediately pay the certificate dues and that ..... petitioner.coal. india ltd., that the provision of section 21 for the mandatory pre-deposit is not at all applicable and accordingly no deposit under section 21 of the rddbfi act. 1993, need be made.3. as for the stay application, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the matter is urgent and an order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC178
..... does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee. such a view would leave indigent persons without a remedy. it is, therefore, essential that the provisions of the act and the rules must be broadly interpreted to ensure access to justice. if a claimant is left without redress even if he has a valid claim against the railway administration ..... would have been able to file the suit invoking order 33 of the code as an indigent person. now that a special claims tribunal has been established under the act, can it be said that indigent persons who do not have the means to pay the fee required on the claim application are altogether debarred from seeking compensation from ..... of his case.4. the respondent-bank has filed affidavit-in-opposition where it is mainly contended that the term "indigent person" does not find place in the rddbfi act of 1993 and order 33 of cpc resorted to by petitioner is confined only, to "suit", that the petitioner did not earlier make any such application as an indigent .....
Tag this Judgment!