Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
It would appear, therefore, that the association of the petitioners was resisting the upgradation of the posts of the respondents from before 26th November 1966. They had. therefore, the knowledge of The Government decision and the consent of the LJ.P.S.C. resulting in Ex. P2 dated 26th November 1966. Thirdly, if at all, the petitioners really discovered the decision of 26th November 1966 much later then in the words of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradcsh v. Bhailal Bhai(2) at 274 of the report "this would be a controversial fact which cannot conveniently be decided in writ proceedings,"
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968
In Tilokchand's case cited above, the delay in filing the writ petition was explained on a similar ground. The petitioner in that case did not know that the statute under which Sales Tax had been recovered from him was unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court held the said statute to be unconstitutional, the petitioner hastened to file the writ petition. The said petition was filed soon after the decision of the Supreme Court, but many years after the Sales Tax had been recovered from the petitioner. The Supreme Court rejected the explanation and held that the delay in filing the writ petition could not be justified as being due to a mistake of law. The true meaning of law is presumed to be known to a petitioner from the time the law was made. An interpretation of the law does not give a new cause of action to the petitioner.