Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.52 seconds)Section 15 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mahant Bikram Dass Chela vs Financial Commissioner, ... on 3 August, 1977
In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr on 24 February, 2012
16. Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Regional Provident Commissioner, Guntur Vs. S. Siva Sankar Rao, Revision Petition No.1617 of 2014, decided on 01.05.2014, whereby five other similar Revision Petitions bearing No.1618, 1619, 1620, 1645 and 1796 all of 2014, were decided, while dealing with the issue as regards condonation of delay of 61, 62 and 78 days in filing the said Revision Petitions, placed reliance on Office of Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013
10. The latest view taken by the Supreme Court is in Civil Appeal No. 19896 of 2013 in the case "M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian", decided on 12th July 2013 wherein SLP was dismissed upholding the judgment of this Commission, where the delay of 78 days was not condoned.
The Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area ... vs Shri Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat on 12 February, 2013
11. Again the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board &Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned.
Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 20 August, 2014
19. A bare reading of the first proviso, engrafted to Section 15 of the Act, makes it clear, that the material part of the language thereof, is pari-materia to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, it is to be seen, as to whether, the applicant/appellant/Opposite Party No.1, has been able to establish that it was on account of misplacement of brief in the office of Sh. Tajender Joshi, Advocate, to whom it was entrusted for filing the appeal, that it could not file the appeal, against the order dated 29.08.2014, in time. A bare perusal of the application for condonation of delay, which is duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, reveals that it has been simply stated in the application/affidavit in support thereof that the brief, whcih was got misplaced in the office of Sh. Tajender Joshi, Advocate, to whom it was entrusted for filing the appeal, was traced during the summer vacations and the same was then withrawan from Sh. Tajender Joshi, Advocate and entrusted to Sh. Vinod Arya, Advocate for preparing the demand draft and filing appeal. However, the dates, on which the said brief was misplaced and the same was traced from the office of Sh. Tajender Joshi, Advocate have not been disclosed. Moreover, no affidavit of the said Counsel namely Sh. Tajender Joshi, Advocate in support of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, has been filed. Rather, affidavit of Sh. Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager of the applicant has been filed in support of the application, which is of no help to the applicant/appellant. Thus, simple averment that the brief was misplaced in the office of the Counsel is not a sufficient ground, for condonation of delay of 327 days. Therefore, it could be said that the applicant/appellant was not diligent enough to file the appeal within the stipulated period. The prescribed period of limitation, as envisaged by Section 15 of the Act, for filing an appeal is 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The applicant/appellant did not act, with due diligence, resulting into delay of 327 days in filing the appeal, which is nearly 1 Year beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The cause, set up by the applicant/appellant, in the application, for condonation of delay, could not be said to be plausible. The delay, in filing the appeal was, thus, intentional, willful and deliberate. Since, no sufficient cause is constituted, from the averments, contained in the application, coupled with the facts available on record viz. misplacement of brief in the office of the Counsel, the delay of 327 days cannot be condoned. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The application is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural Industries(I) on 20 March, 2009
In case, this Commission, decides the appeal, on merits, after coming to the conclusion, that it is barred by time, it would amount to committing an illegality, in view of the principle of law, laid down in State Bank of India's case (supra).