Supreme Court Modifies Pre-Deposit Requirement in Civil Appeal — Justice Served with Reduced Amount. The court found that a reduced deposit of Rs.45,00,000/- sufficed for compliance with the High Court's order, allowing the appeal to proceed.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the State of West Bengal against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta regarding a pre-deposit requirement in a pending appeal. The High Court had ordered the appellants to deposit the entire decretal amount along with interest within three weeks. Subsequently, an interim order from the Supreme Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs.45,00,000/- with the Registrar General of the High Court, which was complied with. The Supreme Court considered whether this amount was sufficient to satisfy the High Court's order. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court concluded that the deposit of Rs.45,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice and substituted the High Court's requirement with this amount. The court requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the pending appeal, FAT No.500 of 2017, preferably within three months. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the court clarified that only the pre-deposit issue was addressed, leaving other issues open for consideration by the High Court.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Pre-deposit Requirement - Modification of Deposit Amount - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section Not Mentioned - The court modified the High Court's order requiring the deposit of the entire decretal amount, allowing a reduced deposit of Rs.45,00,000/- to meet the ends of justice. The court directed that the pending appeal be taken up for hearing on merits following this compliance. Held that the modified deposit suffices for proceeding with the appeal (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the deposit of Rs.45,00,000/- suffices as compliance with the High Court's order to deposit the entire decretal amount.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, allowing a deposit of Rs.45,00,000/- instead of the entire decretal amount, and directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the pending appeal.

Law Points

  • Pre-deposit requirements
  • compliance with court orders
  • appellate procedure
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (08) 145

Civil Appeal No.5293 of 2022

2022-08-16

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

Avishkar Singhvi, Pulkit Agarwal

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

ADONIS ENGINEERS CO-OPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding pre-deposit requirement in a pending appeal.

Remedy Sought

Modification of the High Court's order regarding the deposit amount.

Filing Reason

Challenge to the High Court's directive to deposit the entire decretal amount.

Previous Decisions

High Court ordered deposit of the entire decretal amount with interest.

Issues

Sufficiency of Rs.45,00,000/- deposit as compliance with High Court order

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued for modification of the deposit requirement. Respondent contended for adherence to the original deposit order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a reduced deposit could suffice for compliance with pre-deposit requirements, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Judgment Excerpts

The direction to deposit the entire decretal sum along with interest is, therefore, substituted by direction to deposit Rs.45,00,000/- We, therefore, request the High Court to take up pending appeal being FAT No.500 of 2017 for disposal at an early date.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an SLP (Civil) No.2366 of 2020, challenging the High Court's order dated 23.07.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction for Writ Petitions Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 mandates that such petitions be heard by a Division Bench.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petition as Infructuous Following Disposal of Main Civil Appeal. Contempt Petition Rendered Infructuous Due to Order Passed in Related Civil Appeal.