Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 243O in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jaspal Singh Arora vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 21 July, 1997
4. Mr.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent also resorting to Section 258(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, emphatically brought to the notice of this Court, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jaspal Singh Arorar Vs. State of M.P reported in (1998) 9 SCC 594 for a proposition that the election petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and therefore, he sought for dismissing the present writ petition as not maintainable.
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994
M/S. Consolidated Engineering ... vs The Principal Secretary (Irrigation ... on 3 April, 2008
9. The Apex Court, in the case of M/s.Consolidated Engineer Enterprise (supra), upholding the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, made it clear that the appellant had not prosecuted the matter in other courts with due diligence and in good faith and therefore, he is entitled to claim the exclusion of time in prosecuting the matter in wrong courts. But, in the present case, the facts are all together different. Instead of challenging the election petition under Section 258 of the Act before the District Court, he has wrongly come to this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Hongo India(P) Ltd.& Anr on 27 March, 2009
12. After a cursory reading of the above provisions, if we apply the ratio laid down by the Apex Court held in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and Another reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791, which says that in the absence of any clause permitting the condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am of the view that there is no power to condone the delay after the expiry of the prescribed period of 45 days from the date of publication of the result of the election under the Act. When it is well settled by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case that it is the duty of the Court to respect the legislative intent and by giving liberal interpretation, limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am justified in holding that there is no power for condoning the delay in filing election petition after the expiry of the time limit given under Section 258 r/w Rule 123(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Act and Rules, 1955. The Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Elections) Act, 1955, is a complete code by itself, which alone should govern the matters provided for by the Act. Further, the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, being a special Act, no provision therein does exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by any express reference. Therefore, when there is no express reference to exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, the period of pendency of writ petition before the wrong court or any other delay cannot be excluded. In other words, in the absence of any clause in the Panchayat Act permitting the condonation of delay, I hold that there is a complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.