Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (Subramonian Poti, A.C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter came before the court on a note placed by the court office. The issue raised is described as a matter of common occurrence concerning the effect of certain copies of court orders for the purpose of filing appeals from orders of a single Judge. Specifically, the court considered whether a carbon copy issued by the court (pursuant to an established practice and to R. 126(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala) should be treated as a "certified copy" for the purpose of starting the period of limitation for filing appeals. The court reviewed the relevant rules (R. 128(1) and R. 128(2)) and examined whether the copy produced in this particular case was sufficient to trigger the limitation period.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a carbon copy of an order issued by the court (including a carbon copy supplied immediately after judgment on oral application) is to be treated as a "certified copy" for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation for filing an appeal.
  2. If a carbon copy is to be treated as a certified copy, when does the time for filing an appeal begin to run — from the date of service of that carbon copy or from the date of a later transcribed certified copy?
  3. What constitutes being "duly certified" in the context of a carbon copy issued by the court — whether express words of certification are required or whether sufficient official authenticity will suffice?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeds from the textual provisions of the High Court Rules and from the practical purposes those rules serve:

  • The court observed that a practice exists (per R. 126(2)) for issuing carbon copies of orders on application, and that R. 128(1) provides for a person's right to obtain a copy (which would normally be a certified transcription).
  • R. 128(2) specifically contemplates that a party may apply orally immediately after judgment or order is pronounced for a carbon copy, and that the court may direct that "a carbon copy duly certified" be issued.
  • From the language and purpose of these rules, the court inferred that a carbon copy issued by the court under its authority and described as "duly certified" should be treated as a certified copy for limitation purposes even though it is not a transcription from the original record. The court reasoned that both transcription-based certified copies and court-issued carbon copies serve the same functional purpose: to inform the party of the order so that the running of the appeal period can begin from the time the party becomes aware of the order.
  • The court emphasized that time for filing an appeal must be reckoned from the earliest moment a party obtains an officially issued copy; if a carbon copy is received earlier than a transcribed certified copy, the limitation period begins from the date the carbon copy was received.
  • On the meaning of "duly certified," the court held that certification need not be confined to express words of certification. Instead, sufficient authenticity indicating that the copy is officially issued by the court (not an unofficial or informal copy) is enough to treat the document as "duly certified."
  • Applying these principles to the present record, the court concluded that the copy produced in this case demonstrated sufficient official authenticity and therefore was adequate to trigger the limitation period for appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that a carbon copy of an order, if issued by the court and shown to be "duly certified" (which need not include express words of certification but requires sufficient official authenticity), is sufficient for the purpose of filing an appeal, and the time for filing the appeal will begin to run from the date such a carbon copy is issued or received if it precedes a transcribed certified copy.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties in this case: the copy produced in this case was held to be sufficient for filing the appeal, and the question of delay must be assessed with reference to that copy unless an earlier certified (transcribed) copy was obtained by the party.
  • The opinion clarifies how time for filing appeals should be reckoned when a carbon copy is issued by the court under the authority of the court rules.
  • The opinion does not discuss broader policy consequences or announce that it is establishing a novel binding precedent beyond the reasoning applied to the rules and the facts before the court; its stated consequence is the direct one applied to the present matter.

Disposition: "Order accordingly." (The court directed appropriate disposal consistent with the conclusions summarized above.)

    Joint Agrl. Marketing Advisor () v. Baby ().

    Subramonian Poti, A.C.J:— By reason of a note put up by the office the matter has come up before us. This is a matter of common occurrence and therefore it is good that the, matter has reached our notice.

    2. Generally for the purpose of filing appeals against orders of the single Judge certified copies of orders produced are copies issued by this Court on applications made for that purpose, transcribing from the original and certifying that such copies are true copies. Generally that is what we understand by the term ‘certified copy’. It may so happen that on oral application or written application made a carbon copy may be issued by the Court. There is such a practice and such practice is warranted by R. 126(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala. When such a carbon copy is issued to a party is it to be treated as a certified copy? This question is of considerable significance, for, if that has to be considered as a certified copy then the time for filing an appeal begins to run from the date of service of that copy unless it be that even earlier a certified copy has been obtained b??? the parties. It may be open to a party to apply for and obtain more than one copy and in such a case time must necessarily begin to run at the earliest point of time when the party gets the first copy.

    3. R. 128(1) deals with the right of a person to obtain a copy of any proceeding. That would be a certified copy. R. 128(2) deals with, any party to a proceeding applying orally to the court immediately after the judgment or order is pronounced for a carbon copy of the order of judgment and it further provides that if the court so directs “a carbon copy duly certified” will be issued to the party. Therefore the copy issued by the court-as a carbon copy is also a duly certified copy though it is no??? a transcription from the original. It stands to reason to hold that the issue of a carbon copy duly certified by the court should have the same consequence as issue of a transcribed copy as a certified copy, for, in both, the idea is that the party should get time from the date he comes to know of the order and the period lost in applying earlier is counted and the period lost in cons dering the question of filing the appeal after the copy is received is also counted for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation.

    4. We therefore hold that a carbon copy issued to a party duly certified by the court would be sufficient for the purpose of filing the appeal and time should be reckoned with reference to such carbon copy if between such a carbon copy is received earlier than a certified copy. In other words time will begin to run when once it is shown that a carbon copy has been issued.

    5. ‘Duly certified’ need not necessarily be by express words of certification. Sufficient authenticity in the copy supplied to the party to indicate that it is not an unofficial or informal copy, but a copy officially issued by the court under the authority of the court would be sufficient to treat it as a, duly certified copy. Accordingly we hold that the copy produced in this case would be sufficient for the purpose of the appeal. The question whether there is delay may be considered with reference to that copy unless it be that a certified copy has been obtained by the party earlier and there wou???d be delay if time is reckoned in accordance with that copy.

    6. Order accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Joint Agrl. Marketing Advisor () v. Baby ().
    (Oct 22, 1982)