Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Addl. Collector Of Customs, Calcutta & ... vs M/S. Best & Co on 25 March, 1966
4. The petitioner, however, obtained a certified copy of the order and filed the appeal The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order, (sic) and it refused to exclude the time spent by the petitioner in obtaining the certified copy. In my opinion the Appellate Tribunal committed a manifest error of law. It is a settled principle that where memorandum of appeal is required to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order against which appeal is preferred the time taken in obtaining certified copy is required to be excluded in calculating the period of limitation. In Addl. Collector of Customs v. Best and Co., AIR 1966 SC 1713, it was held that Section 12(2)(3) of the Limitation Act contains a positive direction for excluding the time taken in obtaining the copy of the judgment and decree or order as the case may be, more so in a case where the rules require that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied with a certified copy of the order. As already noted Section 64 of the Act read with Rule 72 requires that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied with a certified copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. In the circumstances the; law laid down by the Supreme Court is fully applicable to the instant case and the petitioner was entitled to exclude the time spent in obtaining certified copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
Section 64 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
1