Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
N.K Proteins Limited (Formerly known as NK Proteins Ltd.), Through Mr. Nilesh K. Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra (Through E.O.W. Unit V) and Competent Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
1. The Appeal filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, raise a challenge to the order passed on 1/01/2019 (Exhibit 2) by the designated MPID Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, in Miscellaneous Application No.1512 of 2017, in MPID Special Case No.1 of 2014, thereby accepting the reasons and justification advanced by the Competent Authority, in filing an affidavit as contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 under Exhibit 256, beyond period of 30 days.
2. We have heard learned senior Advocate Mr. Subodh Desai, along with Mr. Amit Ghag for the appellant and Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez, the Special Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 as well as the Competent Authority i.e. respondent no.2.
A short question arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and in specific to Section 5 (3) thereof.
An ancillary question, which falls for consideration
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing affidavits unless expressly excluded.
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....
Appeals under NIA Act Section 21(5) filed beyond maximum 90 days are not maintainable; delay uncondonable as provision mandatory, excluding Limitation Act Section 5 application.
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.
Setting aside or refusing to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of Act and an appeal lies where an order is passed under Section 34.
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.
Law of Limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay and in an application filed under Sectio....
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
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
