Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.98 seconds)Jokkim Fernadez vs Amina Kunhi Umma on 27 June, 1972
3. We heard counsel for the petitioners Mr. T. P. Kelu Nambiar. The Appellate Authority, as well as the District Court, have held that the delay caused in filing the appeal before the first Appellate Authority cannot be condoned and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable in the case of an appeal filed before the Appellate Authority functioning under the Act. The petitioners' counsel fairly stated that this view of the law is fortified by the majority judgment of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma 1973 Ker LT 138 : (AIR 1974 Ker 162) (FB). Counsel submitted that the dissenting judgment in the aforesaid Full Bench decision lays down the law correctly and the majority judgment rendered in the aforesaid decision requires re-consideration. It was argued that, Section 5, read along with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act will show that the Appellate Authority functioning under the Act has got jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal by virtue of the aforesaid provisions. Another plea, that was raised, was that the Rent Control Court will not become functus officio by granting extension of time for payment once. The court has power to grant extension of time more than once and even repeatedly. In the light of the above submission it was argued that Exts. P2 to P4 orders deserve to be annuled.
The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs T.P. Kunhaliumma on 29 October, 1976
The said view is in accord with the latest decision of the Supreme Court in T. P. Kunhaliumma's case, AIR 1977 SC 282 at page 286.
Section 5 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Ulahannan Chacko And Ors. vs Pareed Marakkar And Ors. on 21 November, 1977
The subsequent Division Bench decisions of this Court have also taken the same view in Thilakan v. Mankai Coir Vyavasaya Co-operative Society Ltd. 1978 Ker LT 256, Ulahannan Chacko v. Pareed Marakkar, 1978 Ker LT 330 : (AIR 1978 Ker 161) and Raman Pillai Thankappan Pillai v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisitions AIR 1982 Ker 350.
Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Thalayar Rubber Industries Ltd. And ... on 6 April, 1981
The majority decision rendered in Jokkim Fernandez case 1973 Ker LT 138 : (AIR 1974 Ker 162) (FB) has been unanimously followed by a subsequent Full Bench in Thalayar Rubber Industries Ltd. case 1981 Ker LT 398 : (AIR 1981 NOC 160) (FB). Three other Division Benches have also taken the same view.
Raman Pillai Thankappan Pillai vs Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisitions, ... on 26 May, 1982
In the latest decision, Raman Pillai Thankappan Pillai's case AIR 1982 Ker 350, the Division Bench had categorically held that the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in relation to Tribunals is ruled out and the Section has limited its application, only to courts. There is an exhaustive discussion of the entire case law on the point in the latest decision.
1