Sikkim High Court
Border Roads Organisation (Bro) vs Vij Engineers And Consultant Pvt. Ltd on 4 July, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
Arb. A. No. 02/2024
BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION (BRO) APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
M/S VIJ ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANT
PRIVATE LIMITED RESPONDENT (S)
For Appellant : Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of
India with Ms. Natasha Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate.
Date: 04/07/2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
...
ORDER :
(per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
This appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order passed by the
learned Commercial Court, Sikkim at Gangtok on 20th December, 2023. The date
of filing of the instant appeal is 22nd February, 2024. However, it was resubmitted
on 05th March, 2024, because the Registry of this Court pointed out certain
defects which were required to be rectified.
From the details of the process of obtaining the certified copy of the
impugned judgment and order dated 20th December, 2023 -- which appears from
the endorsement made in the last page of the impugned judgment and order -- it
appears that the appellant had applied for a certified copy of the impugned
judgment on the date of pronouncement of the judgment itself, i.e., on 20th
December, 2023. The impugned judgment and order was made ready on 22nd
December, 2023. However, for some strange and inexplicable reason, the
Registry of the District and Sessions Court, Sikkim at Gangtok, had given another
date for receiving the copy of the impugned judgment and order. That date was
18th January, 2024 (wrongly stated as 2023).
Ordinarily, the certified copy should have been ready to be delivered to the
applicant on the date on which the certified copy was made ready by the Registry
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
of that Court. The two dates, as provided by the Head Copyist, District &
Sessions Court, Sikkim at Gangtok, therefore, leads to some confusion when
computing the date of limitation. If we take the date, 22nd December, 2023, as
the date on which the certified copy was made ready, the instant appeal is
beyond the period of limitation. However, if another date -- as given by the
Registry of the District & Sessions Court Sikkim at Gangtok for receiving of the
copy -- is taken into consideration and that date is 18th January, 2024, it will
mean that the appeal is within limitation.
Be that as it may, we direct the Registrar General to bring this issue to the
notice of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Gangtok, so that this
anomaly can be corrected in order to remove confusion which may arise in future
for the purpose of computation of limitation in many cases.
Coming back to the present appeal, it appears from the submissions put
forward by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that this is not a matter
which is required to be dealt with by this Court while sitting in appeal against the
impugned judgment and order dated 20th December, 2023, passed by the
learned Judge, Commercial Court at Gangtok. The issues which are sought to be
raised by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India before us, are essentially
factual issues which can only be looked into by the learned Court wherefrom the
impugned judgment and order emanates, while it sits in its Review jurisdiction.
In such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal while granting liberty to the
appellant to file an appropriate application seeking review of the impugned
judgment and order dated 20th December, 2023, before the learned Judge,
Commercial Court, Sikkim at Gangtok.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan) (Biswanath Somadder)
Judge Chief Justice
jk/bp/avi/ami
