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

1966 Supreme(Mad) 182

VEERASWAMI, NATESAN
State of Madras – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Sirajudeen – Respondent


Advocates:
Government Pleader, for Appellant.

Judgement

VEERASWAMI, J :- The State filed a batch of appeals against different respondents but certified copies of a common judgment were produced only in one of the appeals and their production in each of the rest of the appeals in the batch was, by an order of this court, dispensed with. On the basis of the certified copies of the decrees filed in the appeals in which the production of the printed common judgment was dispensed with, those appeals are found to be out of time.

2. Learned Government Pleader argues that the endorsements on the printed copies of the common judgment produced in one of the appeals should be made use of in calculating time for filing appeals under S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act. We do not think that learned Government Pleader is right in his contention. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is explicit and clearly prescribes that in computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree should be excluded. In other words, for the purpose of limitation both the time factors will enter into the computation. Where under the rules, the production of a copy of the j




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