The single-judge appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal filed without condonation of delay for being barred by limitation, noting the appellant's failure to remove defects.
The appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
05.12.2023 Item No. 07 BR
FMAT 2134 of 2005
Mukunda @Mukundalal Paul -vsMadan Mohan Sadhukhan
Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant on call. .
This appeal relates to year 2005 and the memo of appeal has been filed without application for condonation of delay. Appellant has been given liberty to take appropriate steps to remove the defects. However, appellant fails to take appropriate steps to remove the defects.
Accordingly, the appeal being FMAT No. 2134 of 2005 is dismissed being barred by limitation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for information.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties on usual undertakings.
( Ajay Kumar Gupta , J. )
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed despite being filed without condonation of delay.
Mukunda @Mukundalal Paul
Madan Mohan Sadhukhan
Ajay Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
