LexSHIVA JUTE BALING LTD. versus HINDLEY & CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 243 of nationalisation of text books. The learned counsel 1955 appearing in these cases have adopted in their entirety Rai Sahib Ram the arguments that have been advanced by Mr. Pathak Jaw4ya Kapur amt others in Petition No. 652 of 1954 and no fresh or additional v. argument has been put forward by any one of them. The SfrJJe of Punjab This beiqg the position the decision in Petition M11k;;;;;;a c..1. No 652 of 1954 will govern these petitions also and they will stand dismissed but we would make no order as to costs. SHIVA JUTE BALING LTD. v. HINDLEY & CO. LTD. [BIJAN KUMAR MuKHERJEA C.J. and SUDHI RANJAN DAS J.]. Appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution- Procedure to be followed on grant of such leave-Supreme Court Rules, rules 8, 9, 12 and 13 of Order Xlll--Circumstances warrant- ing action against an Appellant for rescinding special leave--Civil Procedure Code, Order XLV, rule 8-"Admission" of appeal to Supreme Cow·t-Applicability to appeals under article 136 of Consti- tution-Extent of Rule 9, Order XIII, of Supreme Court Rules- Rules and Practice of High Collrts-Formal motion in High Court for "admission" of appeal when special le1we was granted under article 136-Whether necessary--Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules, rule 9 of Chapter 32-Scope of. By an order dated May 25, 1~54, the Supreme Court granted the petitioners in the case special leave to appeal against the judg- ment and order of the High Court at Caleutta. In accordance wi:h the order, the pt'titioners furnished the security amounts directed to be deposited within the time specified in the order. The Registrar of the High Court did not iSS\le. any notice of admission of appeal to be served by the Appellant's Solicitor on the Respondents as envisaged in rule 9 of Order. XIII, S.C.R. Nor did the Appellant fol- lowing the practice of the High Court, move that C.ourt for "admis- sion" of the appeal until January U, 1955. The Respondents first mo\·ed the High Co4rt complail).ing of d~ault on the part of the appellants in due prosecution of the appeal and latter moved the Supreme Court for action under rule 13 df Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules. The application in the High Court was there- fore kept pending. Held: Af~er the grant of $pecial leave under article 136, the Registrar of the Supreme Court transmits, in accordance with the • 1955 Shiva Jafe Baling [Jti. v. Hindle)' 11nd Co.UJ. 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1955] provisions of rule 8 of Order Xlll of the Supreme CQurt Rules, a certified copy of the Supreme O>un's· order to the Court or tribu- nal appealed from. Rule 9 of Order XIIl of the Supreme Court Rules enjoins upon rhe Court or tribunal appealed from to act, in the absence of any special directions in the order, iu accordance with the provisions contained in Order XL V of the Civil Proa:dure Code, so far as 'they are applicable. Accordingly the Coun or Tribunal to which the order is transmitted receives deposits on account•of security for the Res- pondents' costs, printing costs, and any other deposits if so ordered hy the Supreme Coun, and sets about preparing the record of the appeal for transmission to the Supreme Court. Therefore, action under rule 13 of Order XIlI, S.C.R. for rescinding the order granting special leave cannot be initiated unless the Court or tribunal appeal- ed from reports to the Supreme Court that the appellant has not been diligent in taking steps to enable that Court to carry out the directions, if any, contained in the order of the Supreme Court and to act in.accordance with the.provisions of Order XLV of the Civil Procedure Code so far. as applicable to appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of rule 9 of Order XIIl of the Suercme Court Rules, the o.pplication of Order XLV of the Code of Civil Procedure to appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution is restricted. The. Court or tri- bunal appealed from, no doubt, bas to carry out the directions con- tained in the order granting special leave, . and to receive the security for the Respondents' costs and other necessary deposits, bui once the security is furnished and the other deposits are made, the formality of "admission" envisaged by rule 8 of Order XLV of the Civil Procedure Code is nnnecessary, because in such cases the order granting special leave by itself operates as an admission of the appeal as so
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.