INDIA HOUSE Vs. KISHAN N LALWANI
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 18,2002
INDIA HOUSE
Appellant
VERSUS
KISHAN N.LALWANI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MURLIDHAR SHRINIVAS V. MOTILAL RAMCOOMAR [REFERRED]A D PARTHA SARATHY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
MALOJIRAO NARASINGARAO SHITOLE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA VS. KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
M R TOBACCO PVT LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-65] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SH. ANIL MINDA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-329] [REFERRED TO]
VISWASRAO BHAURAO BHOITE (CHAVAN) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-9-158] [REFERRED]
BABAJI ALIAS BABAN KERU PHAPALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
CAPTAIN S DINAKAR VS. MS PARVATHI SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-215] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH LAMBA VS. UCO BANK [LAWS(DR)-2013-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
A SHANMUGAKANI VS. S RAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-645] [REFERRED TO]
ACC LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-5-107] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAVI & ANR. VS. B. CHINNA NARASIMHA [LAWS(SC)-2017-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
VISWARAO BHAURAO BHOITE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL FILTERS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-4-180] [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. VS. M/S. A.M. BROTHERS AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. SHANMUGAVELU [LAWS(SC)-2024-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SHRUTI COLORANTS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-263] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRIBUNAL [LAWS(DLH)-2005-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
C SUBHASH MKUDIRAJ VS. REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER MULTI ZONE III ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
BAISAKHU BARETH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KAUR ANAND AND ORS VS. JOGINDER SINGH CHHABRA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-306] [REFERRED]
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-370] [REFERRED TO]
HAITI GOLD MINES COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE VS. VINAY HEAVY EQUIPMENTS CHENNAI [LAWS(KAR)-2005-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
S.P. BALASUBRAHMANYAM VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEDIA CIRCLE NO. 112, UTTAMAR GANDHI SALAI CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-262] [REFERRED TO]
A. VENKATESH VS. A. AHMED ALI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
D R INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE VS. S. HARISH [LAWS(SC)-2024-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
Andhra Cements LTD VS. B Srinivas [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
G RAMASWAMY VS. TALUK EXCISE OFFICER TRICHY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
VIJYALAKSHMI RAVIKUMAR VS. PRINCIPAL REVENUE CONTROL AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-659] [REFERRED TO]
A KOIL RAJ VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-151] [REFERRED TO]
N.RENUKA DEVI VS. E.LALITHA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
THE BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LTD. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GR MUMBAI VS. PRABHAWATI HARIKISHINDAS GEHANI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
CELIR LLP VS. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals by special leave lay challenge to an order of the High Court whereby two civil revisions filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, the Tamil Nadu Act, for short) feeling aggrieved by a common order disposing of two appeals, have been held to have been filed within the period of limitation. The High Court has condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions subject to payment of Rs. 750/- by way of costs by the petitioner to the respondent before it. The respondent in the High Court has filed these two appeals by special leave.
(3.)The facts in brief. The appellate order, which is the subject matter of revision in the High Court, was passed on 25-9-2001. Application for obtaining certified copy of the order was made on 9-11-2001. Certified copy was delivered on 24-12-2001. The civil revisions were filed in the High Court on 2-1-2002. The High Court has held that there was a sufficient cause for the application for certified copy having been made belatedly on 9-11-2001 when the limitation for filing the revision petitions had already expired. The High Court has also held that the time lost between 9-11-2001 and 24-12-2001 (both days inclusive) was liable to be excluded from computing the period of limitation in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the
(2.)These appeals by special leave lay challenge to an order of the High Court whereby two civil revisions filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, the Tamil Nadu Act, for short) feeling aggrieved by a common order disposing of two appeals, have been held to have been filed within the period of limitation. The High Court has condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions subject to payment of Rs. 750/- by way of costs by the petitioner to the respondent before it. The respondent in the High Court has filed these two appeals by special leave.
(3.)The facts in brief. The appellate order, which is the subject matter of revision in the High Court, was passed on 25-9-2001. Application for obtaining certified copy of the order was made on 9-11-2001. Certified copy was delivered on 24-12-2001. The civil revisions were filed in the High Court on 2-1-2002. The High Court has held that there was a sufficient cause for the application for certified copy having been made belatedly on 9-11-2001 when the limitation for filing the revision petitions had already expired. The High Court has also held that the time lost between 9-11-2001 and 24-12-2001 (both days inclusive) was liable to be excluded from computing the period of limitation in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.