Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
YUG DHARMA PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHUJALPUR – Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, BHARATPURI – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER : – This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Yug Dharma Public School under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 28-7-2022, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Jabalpur wherein, the petitioner’s appeal filed under Rule 7 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 has been rejected solely on the ground of its limitation as according to Rule 7, the limitation of 60 days is provided which can be extended to further 60 days’ period, whereas, the appeal has been preferred after a period of 15 days of the extended period of limitation.
2. Shri Manoj Manav, counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid provision of the Limitation Act cannot be construed strictly as has been held by the Calcutta High Court in its decision rendered in the case of C D Steel Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, reported as 2022 SCC Online Cal 1665. (Relevant paras are 19, 20 and 21), and also in the case of Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power Hous
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a special Act itself provides for a limitation period and an extended period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot b....
The appellate authority under the APGST Act cannot condone delays beyond the one-month limit specified in Section 107(4), excluding broader provisions of the Limitation Act.
The court cannot extend the statutory time limit for filing appeals under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the principles of natural justice were not violate....
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, preventing the condonation of delays beyond the statutory period for filing appeals.
Courts may exercise discretion to condone delay in filing appeals in the interest of justice, even if the tribunal lacks the power to do so beyond a specified period.
The appellate authority under the Finance Act, 1994, has no jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutory limit, and special statutes exclude the application of the Limitation Act.
The court affirmed that while the CGST Act imposes strict limitations on appeals, such limitations do not apply in writ proceedings, allowing for the restoration of the appeal based on merits.
Setting aside or refusing to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of Act and an appeal lies where an order is passed under Section 34.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article