Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 131 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Maharaj Narain And Others on 30 January, 1968
This decision interpreted Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and following its earlier decision in the case of State of U. P. v. Maharaja Narain (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the expression "time requisite" in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act cannot be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order.
Section 121 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 129 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Jagat Dhish Bhargava vs Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Others on 5 December, 1960
From the trend of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagat Dhish Bhargava (supra) it would seem that the Court has power in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to allow the appellant to cure the defect in procedure in the manner it was done in an exceptional case as in the case before the Supreme Court.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976
38. The position has also been made clear by the latest Supreme Court decision on this point in the case of the Commr. of Sales Tax U. P. v. Madanlal Dan and Sons, Bareilly, .