1992 (5) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 27 of the Customs Act before the Asstt. Collector which was rejected on the ground that it was premature and therefore, not maintainable. Against which the appeal before the Collector was filed. 3. From the facts narrated in the order of the Collector, it appears that the appellant Smt. Sharda Anand has not signed the appeal but it was signed by Shri S.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant who also does not have any vakalat/authorisation. Shri S.P. Sharma, Advocate vide his letter dated 18-5-1990 stated "I have drafted and filed the present appeal on the oral/telephonic instructions of the appellant/Smt. Sharda Anand C/O : Shri R.K. Anand. Accordingly, I am filing this Memo of Appeal that I am appearing in the present appeal for a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal filed by the individual without signing is filed in accordance with Rule 3(2)(a) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of Bombay High Court in All India Reporter v. Ram Chander etc. AIR 1961 Bom. 292 wherein it was held that "signing and verification of plaint are mere matters of procedure and if a plaint is not properly signed or verified but is admitted and entered in the registers of suits, it does not cease to be a plaint and the suit cannot be said to have been instituted merely because of the existence of some defects or irregularities in the matter of signing and verification of the plaint". It was also held that "it is open to the Court or to the officer of the court authorised to re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) We may also refer to a judgment of Supreme Court in Y. Purshudas v. Muldas (AIR 1966 S.C. 1119) wherein vakalatnama by the appellant was executed in favour of the Govt. pleader. However, the Memorandum of Appeal and vakalatnama were presented in the High Court by the Asstt. Govt. Pleader working in the same office. The irregularity was not noticed by the Registrar. The appeal was duly admitted and heard. The Supreme Court under the above circumstances held that technically the Memo of Appeal presented by the Asstt. Govt. Pleader suffered from the infirmity as the party signed his vakalatnama in favour of the Govt. Pleader and the Asstt. Govt. Pleader could not have accepted it though he was working in the Govt. Pleader's office. Even....