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

1975 Supreme(Kar) 104

VENKATACHALAIAH
R. T. CHINNAVENKATESH – Appellant
Versus
SENIOR RTO, MYSORE – Respondent


Advocates:
N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, R.J.BABU

( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions the question that arises for consideration is whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals filed under S. 15 of the Karnaaka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. The Deputy Transport commissioner, Mysore, dismissed two appeals filed by the petitioners in these two petitions on the ground that they were barred by time. One of the contentions raised in these two writ petitions is that the petitioners had made applications under S. 5 of the Limitation Act before the Deputy Transport commr to condone the delay in filing the appeal and that in not taking them into consideration, he had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the respondents it is urged that S. 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals in question. The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not expressly prqvide that S. 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the appeals filed under S. 15. Sri R. J. Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the principle underlying S. 5 of the limitation Act should have been applied by the Deputy Transport Commr by virtue of sub-sec (2) of S







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