BEG TO DIFFER- THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TOPLINE SHOES LTD. v. CORPORATION BANK
* Published in 3 SCHOLASTICUS 2005, pp. 170-176 (Bi-annual publication of NLU Jodhpur) 1. introduction A Bench comprised of two learned judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank [1] , held as under: “11. …the provision as contained under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 is procedural in nature. It is also clear that with a view to achieve the object of the enactment, that there may be speedy disposal of such cases, that it has been provided that reply is to be filed within 30 days and the extension of time may not exceed 15 days. This provision envisages that proceedings may not be prolonged for a very long time without the opposite party having filed his reply. No penal consequences have however been provided in case extension of time exceeds 15 days. Therefore, it could not be said that any substantive right accrued in favour of the appellant or there was any kind of bar of limitation in filing of the reply within extended time th...