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

1972 Supreme(Ker) 101

T.C.RAGHAVAN, V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, G.VISWANATHA.IYER
JOKKIM FERNANDEZ – Appellant
Versus
AMINA KUNHI UMMA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. I regret that I have to disagree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother Gopalan Nambiyar J.

2. The main contention that is raised by the respondent is that as the appellate authority is not a court (civil or criminal) the provision contained in S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. An answer to this contention must depend on a decision regarding the extent of the applicability of the principles' contained in the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. The Limitation Act contains the general law of limitation of actions. The various Articles in the First Schedule of the Act prescribe the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. The Act also lays down in S.4 to 24 the general principles for determination of the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. They relate to the powers of the court to extend, exclude and compute the period of limitation. If on determining the period of limitation it is found that the suit, appeal or application is filed, preferred or made after the period of the limitation prescribed, the court shoul








































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