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

1980 Supreme(Mad) 66

V.BALASUBRAHMANYAN
E. K. Venkaimarbon – Appellant
Versus
Dakshinamoorthy – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.

1. The question in this case is whether an appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter called the Rent Control Act has power to excuse the delay in filing an appeal from an order of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority concerned in this ease is Thiru A. Raman, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, He said that the Rent Control Act gave him no power to excuse any delay in the appeal. He said that the Act was a complete Code in itself. He said that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had no application to the proceedings before him as an appellate authority under the Kent Control Act.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge is light in thinking that the Rent Control Act is a complete Code. But that, by itself, does not rule out the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Limitation Act, 1963 is a central legislation on a concurrent subject under oar Constitution. It lays down generally the law relating to limitation. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, however, takes note of special or local laws which might prescribe special periods of limitation in a way not found i












































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