Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. COLABAWALLA, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. Both the above appeals have been filed by the Appellant [“MCGM”] challenging the impugned orders/awards dated 13th February 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Authority, Nagpur [“the Reference Authority”] in two separate references preferred by some of the Respondents [the Original Claimants]. By the impugned orders/awards, the references filed by the Original Claimants [before the Reference Authority] under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short the “2013 Act”] were partly allowed and the compensation payable to them was enhanced.
2. Since both the above appeals were not filed within the time stipulated under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act, the above Interim Applications are filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the above two appeals.
3. As mentioned earlier, the impugned orders were passed on 13th February 2024. The application for a certified copy was filed on the same date and was made available also on the same day. Hence limitation to file the above appeals commenced from 14th February 2024. The
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
(1) Acquisition of land – Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Land Acquisition Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) facilitates continuation of acquisition proceedings under 2013 Act by taking off from proceedin....
The court held that appeals filed beyond 120 days without sufficient cause cannot be entertained, emphasizing equal standards for government and private parties in legal proceedings.
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
The CLB lacked the authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the Limitation Act is not applicable to quasi-judicial bodies unless expressly....
The High Court lacks the authority to condone delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under FEMA, which excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Appeal against acquittal – Benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal.
The court ruled that it cannot condone delay beyond 120 days in appeals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
