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

1983 Supreme(Mad) 400

T.SATHIADEV
M. M. Handalappa, A. G. Balasubramania Mudaliar And Company – Appellant
Versus
H. G. Krishna Reddy And Company – Respondent


ORDER

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. In C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1983, petitioner prays for condonation of the delay of 128 days in the filing of the revision petition against an order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under Tamil Act XVIII of 1960.

2. C.M.P. No. 2619 of 1983 is for grant of stay of the proceedings in E.P. No. 144 of 1983 and any other proceedings in H.R.C. No. 3251 of 1974 pending disposal of petition filed in C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1983.

3. Petitioner would state that he could not prefer the revision petition within the time-limit as prescribed under Section 25 (2) of Act XVIII of 1960, due to illness for four months.

4. Respondent herein submits that in view of the special period provided under Section 25 (2) and as Section 5 of Limitation Act, will have no application and the affidavit filed in support of the petition being devoid of any particulars about illness and no proof having been adduced about the truth of the claim that petitioner was ill for four months, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Govind Swaminathan, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits that when there is no express exclusion of the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in Act

















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