M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs Md. Alam
2024 Latest Caselaw 10034 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs Md. Alam on 17 October, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      S.A. No. 200 of 2010
                              ------

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. .... .... .... Appellant Versus Md. Alam . .... .... .... Respondent

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Puja Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Monaj Akhter, Advocate

------

Order No.05 Dated- 17.10.2024 I.A. No.5837 of 2019

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to modify the order dated 25.06.2019 and further to extend the time to remove the defects by a period of four week. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defect no.2 as pointed out by the stamp reporter is regarding filing of appropriate application by the appellant for seeking leave to pay deficit court fee, if any, is sufficient court fee has not been annexed with the memo of appeal. It is then submitted that the court fee will be calculated after removal of the defect no.1 which is to the effect that certified copy of the judgment of case no. 526 of 2008 is missing.

It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for the appellant could not give any satisfactory reply as to why, for the last five years, the appellant is unable to file the certified copy of the impugned judgment passed by the Additional District Judge- FTC-IV, Dhanbad in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 136 of 2009 dated 01.10.2010. It is made clear that the Schedule of Court Fee has been codified and any law knowing person can access the court fee on the basis of value of the appeal concerned but the appellant herein has not valued the second appeal and has mentioned in page no.2 of the appeal memo that the "Second Appeal Valued at Rs. -N.A.". It is pertinent to mention here that law does not permit any pleading of the parties to be made in abbreviation form. Nobody knows what "N.A." stands for.

Keeping in view the negligent attitude of the appellant, the appellant is directed to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within four weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)