Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC v. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
However, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Since the Appeal is dismissed before noticing the Private Respondent, the Registry is directed communicate a copy of this order to the Court below so also the Private Respondent. JUDGE (S.K. MISHRA) Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation…
Judgment
Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC Nilima Pattnaik & ors. …. Respondents -versus- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER 04.03.2024 Order No. 05. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant is present. Though vide order dated 25.01.2024 further three weeks’ time was granted to deposit the Deficit Court Fee, the same is yet to be paid.
After disposal of I.A., no fresh I.A. has been filed by the State/Appellant under Section 149 of CPC for further extension of time to deposit the Deficit Court Fee.
Apart from that, though the Memorandum of Appeal, which has been preferred under Section 74 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, shortly, ‘the Act, 2013’, should have been preferred within 120 (60 + 60) days, there is a delay of 163 days, as pointed out by the Office.
Operative part
However, the Appeal stands dismissed for non- deposit of deficit court fee, as ordered vide order dated
25.01.2024 so also for non-taking of steps for further extension of time.
Since the Appeal is dismissed before noticing the Private Respondent, the Registry is directed communicate a copy of this order to the Court below so also the Private Respondent. JUDGE (S.K. MISHRA) Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2024 15:46:41
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: However, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 149.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.