Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 34 in Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Khunni Lal, Kanhaiya Lal And Sarnam ... vs Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain on 28 March, 1911
No suit could be brought, even if the enactments referred to above had permitted it, to enforce the right after the lapse of twelve years, 'from the time the cause of action arose'. Nothing could lead to the revival of a right that had already become barred.
Section 70 in Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 September, 2003
8. Thus, under the existing proviso the proceedings ought to have been initiated within the period of six years from the date of act or omission or the irregularity complained of. As the incident of irregularity in the present case was committed in 1971, the action initiated by the respondents in 1989 was without jurisdiction being time barred. He also relied on the decision in Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj. DBCSA No. 1198/2000 decided on 12.2.2001 holding the proviso to Section 74(1) to be very clear. Under the proviso, no inquiry can be initiated after the expiry of six years from the date of indicated omission or commission by the concerned person. That decisiorl of learned single judge referred to above is the correct view of the matter.
The Finance Act, 2018
Mani Devi And Ors. vs Ram Prasad And Ors. on 11 October, 1966
16. General principle of statutory provision of limitation and effect of making amendments in the period of limitation can be stated to be that when a statutory Act seeks to revive the barred claims under the repealed law, specific statutory provisions are needed to the enacted to that effect. In the absence of specific provision reviving the remedies which have already become barred by time and are lost before law, the period of limitation comes into force, such claims do not survive for remedy within enlarged limitation. Reference can be made in this connection to a catena of decision: Mani Devi and Ors. v. Ravi Prasad and Ors. , Kumar Tarachand Sinha v. Thakur Chandra Bhusanpal Singh and Ors. , Subodh Chandra Mitra v. Kanailal Mukherjee , Official liquidator, Palai Central Bank Ltd. (inliquidation) Emakulan v. K. Joseph Augusti, Kayalackakam House, Palai and Ors. .