Karnataka High Court
RAMESH GOVIND KULKARNI - Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 07-05-95
W.P. : 29317 of 1994
Limitation Act - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act - Section 105, Section 119
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions to quash the Order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals on the ground of limitation under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation, as the appeals were found to be in time after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified copies of the impugned award. The court also directed the tribunal to allow the appellant to file a separate application for condonation of delay in one of the appeals.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appeals were filed within the prescribed period of limitation and whether a separate application for condonation of delay was required.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, stating that if the time taken for filing the appeal is not found to be barred on exclusion of the requisite time for obtaining a copy of the decision, award, or Order, there is no need for seeking any further extension of time requiring filing of the petition for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned Order of the tribunal and allowed the writ petitions without costs.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the Order dated 19th april, 1994, passed by the respondent-karnataka appellate tribunal (annexure-a) whereby, the tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation.
( 2 ) THE said appeals being numbered 427, 428, 623, 626 and 627 of 1991 were filed before the tribunal under Section 105 of the Karnataka co-operative societies Act, 1959 ('the act' for short), against the award of the honorary arbitrator of the co-operative societies. The office of the tribunal on computation of limitation found four appeals being nos. 427 of 1991, 625 of 1991, 626 of 1991 and 627 of 1991 to be well within time after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified copies of the impugned award. But the appeal No. 428 of 1991 was found to be belated by 92 days. The tribunal dismissed all the appeals by taking a view that even for seeking exclusion of the requisite time taken in obtaining copies, a separate application seeking condonation of delay is necessary and that, since the petitioners failed to file such applications their appeals are liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.
( 3 ) SECTIONS 105 and 119 of the ACT are to the following effect: Section 105. Appeals to the tribunal. Any person aggrieved by, (A) any decision of the registrar made under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 71; or (b) any decision of the person invested by the state government with powers in that behalf under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 71; (c) any award of an arbitrator under clause (c) sub-section (1) of Section 71; or (d) any determination of a liquidator under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 71; (e) any Order made under Section 103 with a view to preventing any delay or obstruction in the execution of any decision or award that may be made under Section 71; (f) any Order passed under Section 69; may within 60 days from the date of decision, award or Order, as the case may be appeal to the tribunal. Section 119. Application of Limitation Act. the provision of sections 4, 5,12 and 14 of the India limitation Act, 1908, shall be applicable to the filing of any appeal or application for revision under this act. Therefore for ascertainment as to whether the appeal can be entertained as well within time, sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Limitation Act"), will have their full play. Sections 5,12 (2) of the limitation ACT which have bearing on the question involved are to the following effect: Section 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation. the fact that appellant or the applicant was misled by any Order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. Section 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. (1 ). . . . . . (2) in computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or Order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation. in computing under this Section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an Order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or Order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.