The court expressed doubts about the maintainability of the appeal but did not entertain it at that stage to safeguard the appellant's right to challenge the final order. A related Common Cause matter was allowed with condonation of a 255-day delay in re-filing the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.1023 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2015
Narinder Kumar Dua
.....Appellant
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Ms.Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the appellant.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The order dated 14.08.2014 of learned Single
Judge issuing “notice of motion only on the quantum of punishment for 03.03.2015” is under challenge in this letters patent appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have issued notice of motion unconditionally.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
We have serious doubts on the maintainability of this appeal. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to entertain
the same at this stage. Suffice it would be to safeguard the interest of the appellant that in case he is aggrieved by the final order passed by learned Single Judge, he shall be at
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.05 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
LPA No.1023 of 2015 (O&M)
liberty to assail the order dated 14.08.2014 as well.
With liberty aforementioned, the appeal stands
disposed of.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE July 14, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.05 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
LPA No.1023 of 2015 (O&M)
[3]
CM No.2130 of 2015 in LPA No.1023 of 2015. ***
Narender Kumar Dua versus State of Punjab and others ***
Present: Ms.Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and 255 days' delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
JUDGE
July 14, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI]
mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.05 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a notice of motion regarding the quantum of punishment is maintainable.
Whether a delay of 255 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned.
Narinder Kumar Dua
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
