Karnataka High Court
Rajajinagar Finance And Investments ... vs Asst. General Manager, Reserve Bank Of ... on 7 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000]101COMPCAS436(KAR)
Author: V. Gopala Gowda
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda
JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The first petitioner is a financial company and the second petitioner is its shareholder. The petitioners filed an application as per annexure "D" dated July 8, 1997, to the Reserve Bank of India for registration under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997. The said application was returned vide annexure "H" on the ground that a non-banking company should have submitted the application before July 8, 1997, and the application was not submitted by the petitioner within six months from the date the Act came into force.
2. Mr. Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application submitted by the petitioners as per annexure "D" was in time in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. E.P. Janu Amma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, , in support of the submission.
3. With regard to commencement and termination of time, Section 9 of the General Clauses Act reads as under :
"9.(1) In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of including the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word 'from', and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word 'to'."
4. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that for the purpose of commencement of time, the first in a series of days or any other period of time must be excluded, Admittedly, the application was submitted by the petitioners on July 9, 1997. If the first day is excluded as contemplated under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the application would be in time. Counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to above, In that case, the court, while considering as to whether the application for reference under Subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was within time or not, has interpreted the aforesaid provision of the General Clauses Act has held that the day of receipt of the application should be excluded for computing the period. In view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act and the law laid down by the Keraia High Court in the decision referred to above, the impugned communication at annexure "H" is not correct and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter at annexure "H" is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to receive the application from the petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act.