Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.57 seconds)D. Saibaba vs Bar Council Of India & Anr on 6 May, 2003
4. The first question which falls for consideration is as to whether the first respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal petition as being barred by limitation. Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writer Licence Rules 1982, states that an appeal against the order of the Licensing Authority shall lie to the State Government within two months from the date of the order. By relying upon the said provision, the Government rejected the petitioner's appeal as it was not been presented within 2 months from the date of the order of cancellation of the document writer's licence. The second respondent cancelled the licence by order dated 16.09.1999 and the appeal was presented on 27.12.1999 and therefore, the State Government held that the appeal is barred by limitation. However, one crucial fact, which was not taken into consideration is the date of communication of the order passed by the second respondent to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.09.1999, cancelling the document writer's licence was communicated to the petitioner only on 13.12.1999. Therefore, the correct interpretation would be that the period of limitation shall commence from the date on which the petitioner received such order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.Saibaba vs. Bar Council of India [(2003) 6 SCC 186], held that the words the date of that order must be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive of the order sought to be reviewed. Therefore, the order of the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's appeal has been barred, is not tenable.
G.C. Nagaraju vs The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Mysore ... on 9 June, 2000
10. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Further, the document in question has been returned to the party concerned after compliance of the registration formalities and the Sub-Registrar, who entertained the document did not have any doubt regarding valuation of the property and accepted the value set forth in the instrument and released the document. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault by alleging that he had suppressed the correct value of the property in the sale deed. The petitioner's consistent case is that the value of the property was mentioned in the document as directed by the parties and there is no collusion and he is not responsible for any loss. However, these aspects of the matter have not been gone into by the respondents while cancelling the licence.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
1