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

1985 Supreme(Del) 462

D.K.KAPUR, S.RANGANATHAN
DIN DAYAL – Appellant
Versus
I. T. APP. TRIBUNAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.B.SAHARIA, D.C.Taneja, K.K.VADHERA, M.M.SINGH, P.N.MISHRA, S.S.SHROFF, Shyam Babu

S. Ranganathan

( 1 ) LOOKED at in the above back ground, line of reasoning in support of the decision of Tribunal in the cases under appeal is easily discernible. Under the scheme of the Act, wherever a time limit is provided for the making of an application or the preferment of an appeal and the legislature intends that any delay in the making of such an application or preferment of such an appeal may be condoned, it says so expressly. In some situations such as in sections 146 and 154, the legislature does not presumably intend any delay being condoned at all. In other situations, such as in Ss. 249, 253 and 264, a very wide discretion to condone the delay is given to the appropriate tribunal. In yet other situations, such as in S. 256 (1), there is a provision for condonation of delay but only upto a specific extent. So far as Ss. 269 G and H are concerned, the statute exprely provides that any application for condonation of delay must be preferred before the expiry of the period of 45 days, 30 days or 60 days as the case may bs. In the cases under appeal, it is common ground that the appeals as well as condonation applications were presented beyond the period mentioned in S. 269














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