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

1967 Supreme(Ori) 14

S.BARMAN, K.AHMAD
KESHAB CHANDRA RANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.C.PANDEY, P.K.MOHANTY, PRABHIR PALIT, R.N.MISRA.

AHMAD, C. J.

( 1 ) THE sole question that falls for consideration in this case is one of illegality said to have been committed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, in dealing with the law of limitation, in the House Rent Control Appeal No. 25 of 1966 This appeal arose out of an order passed on 14-2-1966 in the House Rent Control Case no. 10 of 1964 The period of limitation provided in Section 12 of the Orissa House rent Control Act 1958 for such an appeal is fifteen days "from the date on which the order is communicated" to the party aggrieved thereunder In the present case the finding given by the appellate court is that though the order under appeal was delivered on 14-2-1966, it was communicated to the petitioner (who had lost it in the Court of the House Rent Controller) on 18-2-1966. Therefore, according to the appellate court, the petitioner was entitled to prefer the appeal within fifteen days from 18-2-1966. Further, as provided in Section 12 read with Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1963 petitioner was also entitled to the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the order appealed from--Subject of course to the condition that the filing of a certifi








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