Supreme Court Directs Revival of Appeal on Deposit Condition. Additional Deposit Required for Appeal Consideration by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the dismissal of an appeal filed by the appellant, M/s. Fainee Real Estate P. Ltd., before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority due to non-deposit of the required amount. The appellant had previously deposited Rs.20 lacs as directed by the court, but the appeal was dismissed for failing to comply with the deposit requirement. The appellant subsequently filed a writ petition against the dismissal, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, noted the peculiar circumstances of the case and directed the appellant to deposit an additional sum of Rs.10 lacs within four weeks. The court stated that upon this deposit, the appeal would be revived, and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority would decide the matter expeditiously. The interim order was to continue until the appeal's disposal, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appeal Revival - Conditions for Revival of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court directed the appellant to deposit an additional sum to revive the appeal dismissed for non-compliance with deposit requirements. The court emphasized the need for compliance with financial conditions to ensure the appeal's consideration by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Held that the appeal would be revived upon the deposit of the specified amount (Paras 1-1).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal can be revived upon additional deposit by the appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to deposit an additional sum of Rs.10 lacs within four weeks for the revival of the appeal. The court ordered that upon such deposit, the appeal would be revived and decided expeditiously by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

Law Points

  • Civil procedure
  • appeal revival
  • deposit requirement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (SC) (05) 27

Civil Appeal No. 4211 of 2011

2011-05-06

Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma

M/S. Fainee Real Estate P. Ltd.

State of U.P. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding the revival of an appeal dismissed for non-deposit.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought revival of the appeal by complying with deposit requirements.

Filing Reason

The appeal was dismissed due to non-deposit of the required amount.

Previous Decisions

The appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was dismissed, and a writ petition against that dismissal was also dismissed.

Issues

Whether the appeal can be revived upon additional deposit by the appellant.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued for the revival of the appeal based on the deposit made. The respondents contended that the appeal was rightly dismissed for non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that compliance with deposit requirements is essential for the revival of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant has already deposited Rs.20 lacs we direct the appellant to deposit another sum of Rs.10 lacs within four weeks from today

Procedural History

The appeal was initially dismissed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for non-deposit of the required amount. A writ petition against this dismissal was also dismissed before the Supreme Court heard the matter.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Petition by Employee Against National Insurance Co. for Removal from Service Due to Unauthorized Absence. Medical Grounds and Alleged Procedural Lapses Raised Under National Insurance (CDA) Rules, 2014.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Order for Violation of Mandatory Procedure Under Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Failure to Provide Personal Hearing and Proper Opportunity to Respond Renders Assessment Order a Nullity.