Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.62 seconds)Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 30 March, 1961
(emphasis supplied)
9.3 Reference may also be made to Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh
Vs Deputy Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1961 SC 1500 (1962) 1 SCR
M.A.151/CHD/2019
In ITA 1140/CHD/2016
Page 14 of 16
676 wherein the Court held that literal or mechanical way of
construing the words 'from the date of the Collector's award' was
unreasonable. The Court assigned a practical meaning to the
expression by holding that it is the date when the award is either
communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively."
9.4 Reference may also be made to the extract from the decision
by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying on Raj Kumar Dey V
Tarapada D ey (1987) 4 SCC 398 wherein an elaborate discussion was
considered in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court :
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
In Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey [(1987) 4 SCC 398] this Court pressed
into service two legal maxims guiding and assisting the court while resolving an
issue as to calculation of the period of limitation prescribed, namely, (i) the law
does not compel a man to do that which he could not possibly perform, and (ii) an
act of the court shall prejudice no man. These principles support the view taken by
us hereinabove. Any view to the contrary would lead to an absurdity and
anomaly. An order may be passed without the knowledge of anyone except its
author, maybe kept in the file and consigned to the record room or the file may lie
unattended, unwittingly or by carelessness. In either case, the remedy against the
order would be lost by limitation though the person aggrieved or affected does not
even know what order has been passed. Such an interpretation cannot be
countenanced.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi vs M/S. Ansal Housing And Construction ... on 22 January, 2020
11. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid decisions and also
relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
CIT Vs Ansal Housing Construction Ltd. 274 I TR 131 (Del), we deem
M.A.151/CHD/2019
In ITA 1140/CHD/2016
Page 16 of 16
it appropriate to recall the ex-parte order dated 20.09.2017 in ITA
1140/CHD/2016. The appeal is directed to be fixed for hearing on
30.08.2022. Registry is directed to issue notice to the parties.
Said order was pronounced at the time of hearing itself.
Section 48AA in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1