Format of Memorandum of Appeal

By | September 24, 2016
images 2 1


A memorandum of appeal is different from petition. Therefore, no enumeration of the facts of the case, no complaint against the high handedness of the other party, no plea of the helpless condition of the appellant and no plea for sympathy of the court should find any place in memorandum. The memorandum can be divided into two main parts. They are

  • Formal part
  • The Material Part

In the formal part the following should be included:

(a) Heading of the case: This should begins with the name of the Court, the name and address of the parties to the appeal should be given. The name of the appellant being given first.

(b) An introductory state of the appellant: This statement must give the particulars of the decree or order appealed from.

(c) The Valuation of the appeal:

Though there is nothing in the C.P.C. to required that the valuation of an appeal should be written in the memorandum of an appeal yet as and Valoren Court fees are after payable, it has become a common practice to enter the value of the appeal in the memorandum.

(2) The material part of an appeal should include the following

(A) Ground of Appeal:

(i) The grounds of Appeal or objection should be written distinctly and specifically.

(ii) They should be written concisely.

(iii) They must not be framed in a narrative or in an argumentative form.



The Honourable Chief Justice

And the other Judges of the

Honourable Court.

The petitioner above named respectively showith

1) The petitioner carries on the business of import of all kinds of machinery under the name and style of „Ganga imports‟ having his office at 42 Masjid Bander Road, Hyderabad.

2) The second respondent is appointed U/Sec 5 of the import and Export Act 1956 and is authorized to process all applications for import under the provisions of the said Act.

3) On 02.05.2011, the petitioners made an application to the second respondent in the prescribed form for import of certain textile machinery from Germany. The said application was accompanied by the prescribed fee of Rs. 2,00,000. Here to annexed and marked exhibit „A‟ is a copy of the petitioner said applications dated 2nd May, 2011.

4) As the petitioner did not receive any reply from the second respondent, the petitioner wrote a letter to expedite the issue of the Import licence infavours of the petitioner. In the said letter, the petitioners also requested for a personal hearing before any final decisions was taken in the matter by the second Respondent. Annexed have to and marked exhibit „B‟ is a copy of the said letter of the petitioner date 10.10.2011.

5) The petitioner says that thereafter, the petitioner addressed two further reminders to the second respondent on 15.11.2011 and on 04.12.2011 once again requesting the second respondent to issue the necessary import licence to the petitioners. The petitioner craves leave to refer to and reply upon the said reminders dated 15.11.2011 and 04.12.2011 when produced.

6) The petitioner submits that the application here in was made by the petitioner in Hyderabad. The second respondent has rejected the said application in Hyderabad and this Honourable Court. Therefore has jurisdiction to receive, try and determine this petition.

The petitioner therefore prays

(a) That this honourable court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction U/Art-226 of the constitution of India, against the respondents ordering and directing them.

(i) To forthwith withdraw and cancel the said letter of rejection dated 07.01.2011 being exhibit „C‟ here to

(ii) To forthwith disperse of the application of the petitioner dated 02.05.2011 being, exhibit „A‟ here to after giving to the petitioner as per the rules and guidelines relating to imports licensing.

(b) For the costs of this petition and

(c) For such further and other orders and the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

Petition drawn by xxxx

Mr. Kiran, Advocate, H.C., A.P. Managing Director

and settled by M/s Indira TradingCo.

Mr. Ajay Babu, Senior Advocate

Author: Mayank Shekhar

Mayank is a student at Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.