SHEW BUX MOHATA AND ANOTHER versus SM. TULSIMANJARI DASI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 29-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
643 
passed in 1941, can be read only as affecting a period 
r96r 
for which there was no limit. If"the sub-section saidM 1-d 8 , .. 
h 
h II 
b 
bl , 
f R 50 . h 
st. 
a ao 
aou;• 
t at tax s a not e paya e m excess o 
s. 
wit -
v. 
out indicating the period or date, the argument would Municipal Com-
have some support, but it puts in a date, and the mittee, Khandwa 
operation of the prohibition is confined to a period 
& Another 
after that date. 
The Validating Act, being thus completely within 
the powers of the Governor, could remove retrospec-
tively the defect in the earlier Act. 
Though it re-
imposed the tax from the date of the earlier Act, it 
took care to impose the tax for a period ending with 
March 31, 1938. The impugned Act did not need the 
support of the proviso, because it did not fall within 
the ban of the second sub-section. In our opinion, 
the Validating Act of 1941 was within the powers of 
the Governor, and was a valid piece of legislation. 
The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
SHEW BUX MOHATA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SM. TULSIMANJARI DASI AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Practice-Security 
for costs-Appeal to Supreme Court-
Certificate granted by High Court-Power of High Court to extend 
time-Code of Civil Procedure, r908 (Act 5 of r908), 0. 45, rr. 7, 
IO, II-Supreme Court Rules, r950, 0. XII, r. 3. 
On an application made by the appellant, the Calcutta High 
Court granted a certificate on May r8, 1956, enabling him to 
appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree 
of the High Court. 
Under 0. 45, r. 7(r)(a), of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, i908, the appellant had to deposit the security 
amount for costs of the respondent within ninety days or such 
further period, not exceeding sixty days, as the court may upon 
cause shown allow, from the date of the decree complained of, 
or within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certifi-
cate, whichever was the later date. Being unable to deposit 
Hidayatullah ]. 
Marek 29. 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
z96z 
the amount on the due date, the appellant filed an application 
on July 4, 1956, before-the High Court praying that the amount 
Shew Bux Mohata tendered by him be accepted after condoning the delay, but the 
v. 
High Court rejected it on the ground that according to the 
Tulsimanja.ti Dasi uniform current of decisions of that Court it had' no jurisdiction 
to extend the time for depositing the amount. 
Held, that reading O. 45, r. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908, along with the other relevant provisions of the said Order, 
a High Court has jurisdiction to extend time for furnishing 
security under the rule, and that the decisions of the Calcutta 
High Court to the contrary are erroneous. 
Order XII, r. 3, of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, expressly 
recognises and gives jurisdiction to the High Courts to extend 
the time for furnishing the security in a proper case. 
Raja Kumar Govind Narayan Singh and others v. Shamlal 
Singh and others, (1934) 39 C.W.N. 65r and Akimuddin Chowdhury 
v. Fateh Chand Mahesri & others, (1939) 44 C. W. N. 920, disap-
proved. 
Roy Jyotindranath Chowdhury & Ors. v. Rai Prasanna Kumar 
Banerjee Bahadur, (r906) II C.W.N. lI04, Harendra Lal Chaudhry 
v. Sm. Hari Dasi Debei, (1909) l4C.W.N. 420, Nilkanth Balwant 
Natu & Ors. v. Shri Satchidanand Vidya Narsinha Bharati & Ors., 
(r927) I.L.R. 5I Born. 4'JO, Bishnath Singh & Ors. v. Batwant Rao 
Naik Kalia & Ors., I.L.R. [r939] All 549, Ismail Piperdi v. 
Momin Bi Bi & Ors., (1939] Rangoon L.R. 668, Lachmeshwar 
Prasad Shukul v. Girdhari Lal Chaudhuri, (r940) I.L.R. 19 Pat. 
123, Ghulam Rasul v. Ghulam Qutabud-din, (1942) I.L.R. 23 Lah. 
447, Gulam Hussain v. Mansurbeg & Ors., I.L.R. [1952] Nag. 406 
and Thota Pitchaiah & Ors. v. M. Vedanta N arasimhacharyulu & 
Ors., I.L.R. [1956] Andhra 55, approved. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 34 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated July 
6, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court in appeal to the 
S. C. No. 32 of 1955. 
N. 0. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appel-
lants. 
Syarrulas Bhattacharya and S. N. Mukherjee, for 
the respondents. 
1961. March 29. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gajendragadka. J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The short question of law 
which arises in this appeal is whether the Calcutta 
High Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for 
• 
•

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.