L.P.A. No. 54 of 2017. Case: Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court

Case NumberL.P.A. No. 54 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate, Pandey Neeraj Rai and Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates and For Respondents: Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI
JudgesPradip Kumar Mohanty, Actg. C.J. and Ananda Sen, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 227; Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 - Sections 28, 6; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 6
Judgement DateFebruary 09, 2017
CourtJharkhand High Court

Judgment:

I.A. No. 1171 of 2017

  1. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017.

  2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today.

  3. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017.

  4. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable.

  5. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.

  6. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy.

  7. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT