SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 190

S.B.MAJMUDAR, S.P.KURDUKAR
Saithalavi – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court in the impugned order has taken the view in the revision filed by the respondent-Electricity Board that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short "the Act") beyond a period of three years. The award of the authority was dated 9-8-1983 while the application was filed in 1993 before the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Act. The High Court rightly held that the said application was beyond time of three years permissible under law as held by this Court in the case of Kerala SEB v. T. P. Kunhaliumma ((1976) 4 SCC 634). However, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that even when such an objection was raised in the grounds of objection before the trial court by the respondent, no such objection appeared to have been canvassed ultimately nor even such an issue was struck by the trial court. Be that as it may, the question of limitation in the facts of this case being a pure question of law would assume the character of an issue of jurisdiction. However, learned counsel for the appellant w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top