Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.21 seconds)Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, ... on 29 April, 1910
"The only question on the merits which falls for decision is whether the one year has to be computed from the date when the order was signed by the Income-tax Officer, or the date when it was communicated to the petitioner, or the date, if there be any, on which the petitioner had the opportunity of coming to know of the order. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on a catena of decisions of this Court of which it is sufficient to refer to two, namely, Secy. of State for India in Council v. Gopi Setty Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, ILR (1911) 34 Mad 151 and Swaminathan v. Latchumanan, ILR (1930) 53 Mad 491: (AIR 1930 Mad 490), which support his contention that the date of the order does not mean the date when the officer passed the order but the date when it was pronounced or published in such a manner that the party must be deemed to have had notice of it on the date of such pronouncement or publication....."
Madan Lal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 28 August, 1975
In the case of Madan Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 2085, the question for consideration was whether an appeal filed under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act of 1927 was barred by limitation, Section 17 of the Act allowed an appeal to be preferred by any person who had made a claim under the Act or any Forest Officer or other person generally or specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf against an order passed on such claim by the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 11 and the appeal had to be filed within three months from the date of the order, The order in that case had been mads on 24-4-1956, but the impugned order was dated May 9, 1955. Dealing with the question of limitation, the appellate tribunal observed (at p. 2086):--