Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Shipra Estate Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner on 30 January, 2018 cites

Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors on 2 September, 2009

- (2009) 9 SCC 352 to contend that the Apex Court has laid down fairly settled position of law that if a statute does not prescribe time limit for exercise of revisional power it does not mean that such power could be exercised at any time, rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. He further points out by referring to paragraphs 11 & 12 of the said judgment that ordinarily reasonable period within which the power has to be exercised would be three years subject to exceptional circumstances. Though the said judgment arises under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code regarding revisional power of the revenue authority under Section 257 of the said Code, it is his contention that said well established principle of law recognized by the Apex Court is applicable to the powers to be exercised by the authorities invested with such powers under the provisions of different enactments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 168 - Full Document

Jotiba Ningappa Patil vs The Competent Authority, Belgaum Urban ... on 26 May, 1998

Indeed, learned Senior Counsel invites the attention of the Court to the discussion made by the Apex Court in Nikkanti Rama Lakshmi's case at paragraph 8 wherein the judgment in the case of NINGAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS (C.A.No.3131/2007 decided on 14.11.2011 of the Apex Court has been referred and the position of law has been reiterated stating that it is a settled position in law that where statute provides no period of limitation, any provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - Full Document
1   2 Next