Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
In The Matter Of S. Krishnaswami And Etc. ... vs Unknown on 3 May, 1990 cites

Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs T.P.K.K. Amsom And Besom, Kerala on 29 October, 1976

9. There is no wriggling out of the proposition settled by the highest Court in the land. However, the primary question argued by Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel leading in these matters, is that proceedings filed for grant of probate and letters of administration with or without the will annexed, could not have the character of application, within the meaning of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On this proposition, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in The Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kun-haliumma, , does not throw any light. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, in that pronouncement, had no occasion to deal with the present proposition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 79 - A N Ray - Full Document

K.J. Lingan And A.V. Mahayalam And Ors. vs Joint Commercial Tax Officer And Anr. on 22 September, 1966

13. Venkatadri, J. in M/ s. K. J. Lingan v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, , referred to the earlier pronouncements of this Court with regard to the meaning to be annexed to the term 'proceeding' and held that the very action of calling upon a dealer by the notice of commounding under Section 46 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1 of 1959 is a proceeding under that Act, since it is a step in aid or action taken by the concerned authority in the whole process of assessing the dealer on his turnover and hence, a Revision would lie against such notice.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1