Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.25 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Director Of Inspection Of Income ... vs Pooran Mal & Sons & Another on 20 September, 1974
Therefore, the view of the Division Bench that the maxim actus curiae neninum gravabit will not apply to a specific legislative measure providing limitation which does not except from its domain causes which are delayed by reason of issuance of a Court's order, cannot be held a correct one. We therefore hold that as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Director, Income-tax v. Pooran , the maxim under consideration will apply to the legislative measure contained in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act notwithstanding there being- no express provision in the proviso to causes which are delayed by reason of issuance of a Court's order.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
M/S. Jaipuria Brothers Co vs State Of Uttar Pradesh A Others on 21 October, 1964
In. Jaipuri Brothers Ltd. v. State of U.P. , which arose under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the assessee's contention was that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. This was not accepted by the, High Court because, in its view, the three years' period prescribed under the Act would be, attracted only if the assessing officer exercised his suo motu powers of revision, but it will have no application if the re-assessment was sought to be made in pursuance of an order passed by an appellate" or revisional authority. It was this differentiation in the application of the period of limitation, that was disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. No such situation exists here. Moreover, the application of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravdbit did not arise for consideration in that case.
K. Venkateswara Rao And Anr vs Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Ors on 13 August, 1968
Venkateswara Rao v. Narasimha Reddy , was a case relating to an election petition and the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act cannot apply to an election inasmuch as the Representation of the People Act is a complete and self-contained Code and it does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation Act. In the present proceedings, the respondents do not rely upon the saving provisions contained in the Limitation Act to get over the interdiction contained in the proviso to Section 61(1). On the other hand, they pray for the application of the equitable principle that the act of Court should not prejudice them.