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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 147

KANAKARAJ
G. Deenadayalan – Appellant
Versus
Habibunnissa – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A. Jagadeesan, for Petitioner.
A.J. Abdul Razack, for Respondent.

Judgment :-

1. This is a petition to excuse the delay of 31 days in the presentation of the civil revision petition filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called “the Act”). According to the petitioner the order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.20 of 1992 was made on 7.4.1993. The civil revision petition was filed on 5.6.1993. Though the petitioner says in the affidavit that there are only 30 days delay in filing the revision petition, after the office returns, he admits that the delay is 31 days in filing the revision petition. Lest there should be any doubt on this aspect of the case, I am giving below the calculation of the delay:

Date of Order on 7.4.1993 4 days (April)

Date of Application made on 12.4.1993 21 days (June)

Certified copy made ready on 9.6.1993 31 days (July)


C.R.P. filed on 5.8.1993 5 days (August)

2. The office note refers to certain earlier judgments of this Court on the interpretation of Sec.25(2) of the Act. The purport of these decisions is to the effect that the period of limitation provided under the Act is absolute and the delay if any, can be excused only upto a further period of one month and for










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