9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Bar on limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment. 2. Interpretation of rules regarding the filing of appeals. 3. Comparison between appeals under the Letters Patent and Civil Procedure Code. Analysis: 1. The judgment in question involves an appeal against a notice issued under section 16 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for the assessment year 1982-83. A writ application was filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to the quashing of the notice by a learned single judge of the High Court. The appeal against this judgment was filed after a significant delay of 856 days, raising the issue of whether the appeal is barred by limitation. 2. The contention of the appellants revolves around the requirement of an order being drawn up before filing an appeal, as per rules 1 and 2 of the High Court Rules. The main question raised is whether an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable solely against the judgment of a single judge, without the need for the accompanying order. The court emphasized that the appeal is against the judgment itself, not a formal order, and highlighted the distinction between appeals under the Letters Patent and those under the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Drawing a parallel with the Civil Procedure Code, the court pointed out that appeals under sections 96 and 100 are against decrees, necessitating the filing of certified copies of the decrees. In contrast, appeals under the Letters Patent are against judgments, making it unnecessary to insist on a formal order for filing an appeal. The court concluded that the present appeal, being a Letters Patent appeal, is indeed time-barred due to the delay in filing. 4. Despite finding the appeal time-barred, the court considered the appellants' bona fide but mistaken belief regarding the appeal's competency without the order. In the interest of justice, the court decided to allow the appellants an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay. Depending on the outcome of this application, the court would then make a final decision on whether the delay should be condoned or not. 5. The judgment was delivered by V. K. Gupta, with V. N. Khare concurring. The court adjourned the case for two weeks to allow the appellants to file an application for condonation of delay. If no such application is filed, the appeal would be liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
|
