Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.64 seconds)

Kulandaisami And Another vs Lourdusami on 1 February, 1999

In Ramachandra Iyer v. Annamalai Chettiar, , a Division Bench of this Court had occassion to consider the acknowledgement during the extended period of limitation under Sec. 13 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). These rulings were rendered under the old Limitation Act. where there is no definition of expression "prescribed period". Under the new Limitation Act. "Prescribed period" is defined in Sec. 2(j) of Limitation Act.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sucden India P Ltd vs Mumbai South on 11 January, 2019

In support of his stand that delay in filing of refund application can be condoned in the circumstances of the case, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Tarapada Dey and Others - AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 2195 and the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rama Aba Singale and Others Vs. Sumitrabai and Another - AIR 1979 BOMBAY 14 and Pratapsing Ganpatrao Kadam Vs. ST/86033/2018 3 Maruti Raghunath Todkar - AIR 2003 BOMBAY 11, also the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Ramachandra Iyer Vs. M.A. Annamalai Chettiar and Others - AIR 1968 MADRAS 103 (V 55 C
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govinda Padayachi vs Uthandi Padayachi on 5 October, 1993

In Ramachandra Iyer v. Annamalal Chettiar , a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the acknowledgment during the extended period of limitation under Section 13 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). There rulings were rendered under the old Limitation Act, where there is no definition of expression "prescribed period". Under the new Limitation Act, "Prescribed period" is defined in Section 2(j) of Limitation Act.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - P Singh - Full Document
1