Back
S.S. Jha and Chandresh Bhushan, JJ.
Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co.
Civil Revll. No. 155 of 2003 (G); Decided on 25.8.2003.
(2) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 -- S. 19 -- revision under Adhiniyam -- provisions of S. 5 of the Act are not applicable.
¼1½ ek/;LFke vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½& &/kkjk 19 & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963&/kkjk 5&vf/kfu;e ds v/khu iqujh{k.k & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds v/khu mica/k ykxw ugha & vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vof/k dk c<+k;k tkuk Hkh micaf/kr ugha gSA
¼2½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963& &/kkjk 5 & e-iz- ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 & /kkjk 19& vf/kfu;e ds v/khu iqujh{k.k & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds mica/k ykxw ugha gksrsA
Heard on MCP No. 795/03. This application is under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Preliminary objection has been raised by respondent that provisions under section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings arising out of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam. In support of their contention counsel for respondent referred a case of Nasiruddin and others v. Sitaram and others reported in 2003 (2) SCC 577 and submitted that this being a special Act provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable. The Act has not provided any provision for condoning delay in filing the revision.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that since the powers under section 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure are conferred upon the High Court, therefore, provisions of Limitation Act will be applicable to the present case. Section 19 of the Adhiniyam clearly specifies that the revision shall be filed within three months from the date of passing of the award but this section does not provide for extension of time or condoning the delay in filing the revision filed beyond the period of three months. In the absence of any specific provision for condoning delay, the delay in filing revision cannot be condoned. .
The petitioner acquired knowledge of the award on 10.4.2003 after notice of execution was received. Thereafter they approached the Tribunal for certified copy on 5.5.2003 and received the certified copy on the same day and the revision is filed on 30.5.2003. Thus, the petitioner has not explained the delay between 10.4.2003 to 5.5.2003 and from 5.5.2003 till 30.5.2003. As such in the application sufficient cause has also not been shown. Even otherwise, since provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, the application is dismissed.
Consequently, N.C.P. No. 794/03 is also dismissed and the Civil Revision is dismissed as ban-ed by limitation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
