Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)M/S. Saketh India Limited And Others vs M/S. India Securities Limited on 10 March, 1999
6. Learned counsel for the complainant would
submit that the decision in Saketh's case was not
distinguished or overruled by the Apex Court in SIL
Import's case cited supra. The decision in SIL Import's
case has to be distinguished on facts especially because in
that case the complaint was filed so many days after the
expiry of the period prescribed, the learned counsel for the
complainant submits.
M/S. Sil Import, Usa vs M/S. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, ... on 3 May, 1999
6. Learned counsel for the complainant would
submit that the decision in Saketh's case was not
distinguished or overruled by the Apex Court in SIL
Import's case cited supra. The decision in SIL Import's
case has to be distinguished on facts especially because in
that case the complaint was filed so many days after the
expiry of the period prescribed, the learned counsel for the
complainant submits.
Jossy Kondody vs Chacko Thomas on 7 September, 1999
The decision in Jossy Kondody v.
Chacko Thomas reported in [1999 (3) KLT 207] was also
cited before me, where the decision in SIL Import's case
Crl.A. No.158 of 2005
-: 6 :-
cited supra was also referred.
Subodh S. Salaskar vs Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr on 1 August, 2008
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant
that Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (supra) was referred by the
apex court in Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah
[2008 (3) KLT 616].
Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007
The learned counsel for the accused
would submit that in the light of the Full Bench decision of
this Court in Joseph v. Special Tahsildar reported in
Crl.A. No.158 of 2005
-: 8 :-
[2001 (1) KLT 958 (F.B.)] the later decision is to be
followed. It was held by the Full Bench :
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 138 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.P. Chandradasan vs George Kollassani And Anr. on 5 February, 2003
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would
submit that the facts of that case are entirely identical to
the facts of the present case and as such there can be no
doubt that the complaint filed on 19.5.2000 is well within
time. This decision was followed by this Court in
Chandradasan v. George reported in [2003 (3) KLT 151].
In that case the period of 15 days expired by 1.9.1996 and
so it was found that the cause of action arose on 2.9.1992.
It was held that in computing the period of one month the
first day ie;2.9.1996 has to be excluded and the last day,
2.10.1996 has to be included and thus it was found that the
period of one month expired by 2.10.1996. Since in that
case 2.10.1996 was a holiday it was held that the complaint
filed on 3.10.1996 was well within time.
1