Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Hira Tikkoo vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 13 April, 2004
16. Further, in Hira Tikkoo Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported
in (2004) 6 SCC 765, the following has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
Huda And Anr vs Dr. Babeswar Kanhar And Anr on 22 November, 2004
In Huda and another VS. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar and another (2005) 1 SCC
191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Sambasiva Chari vs Ramaswami Reddi on 27 September, 1891
"5 . What is stipulated in clause 4 of the letter dated
30-10-2001 is a communication regarding refusal to
accept the allotment. This was done on 28-11-2001.
Respondent 1 cannot be put to loss for the closure of
the office of HUDA on 1-12-2001 and 2-12-2001 and
the postal holiday on 30-11-2001. In fact he had no
control over these matters. Even the logic of Section 10
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be pressed into
service. Apart from the said section and various
provisions in various other Acts, there is the general
principle that a party prevented from doing an act by
some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at
the first subsequent opportunity (see Sambasiva Chari
v. Ramasami Reddi [(1898) 8 MLJ 265: ILR 22 Mad
179]). The underlying object of the principle is to
enable a person to do what he could have done on a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA
holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a
SINGH
Signing time: 30-07-2024 period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a
04:18:45
7 WP-7013-2021
court or office, and that period expires on a holiday,
then the act should be considered to have been done
within that period if it is done on the next day on
which the court or office is open. The reason is that
law does not compel the performance of an
impossibility.
1