Legal Reference Library

This division bench of S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, JJ held that there can be no order for condonation of delay beyond the extended period of limitation, stating that when the legislative intent is indicated by the provisions of special laws that exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, then authorities under such statutes cannot exercise power to condone the delay. The Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the refusal of condonation of a delay of 223 days in proceedings before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The Court noticed that Section 85 of the Finance Act) provides that appeal be filed 3 months from date of communication of order, while the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone delays of a further three months if satisfied of sufficient cause. The Court noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which permits the Court to exercise its discretion in condonation of ...

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The Court referring to Apex Court decisions in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC), Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., reported in 2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission reported in 2010 (5) SCC 23, observed that it is well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied, beyond the condonable period. The Court obser...

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held that the expression “suit or other proceedings” in Section 446(1) under chapter II of Part VII of Companies Act, 1956, does not include criminal complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The Bench comprising of Justices Dr.Shalini Phansalkar Joshi and Dharmadhikari was answering a reference from a Single Judge to resolve a conflict between two views recorded in two Single Judges’ Judgments of Bombay High Court. Before the Single Judge, two decisions of Coordinate Benches of High Court were placed taking divergent views on the application of Section 446(1) of the Act to the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, viz. (i) in the matter of Firth (India) Vs. Steel Co. Ltd. (In Liqn.), decided on 4th September 1998 [Coram : F.I. Rebello, J.], reported in AIR 1999 Bombay 75, taking a view that Section 446(1) of the Companies Act is not applicable to proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act; and (ii) unrep...

In Krishna Bhattacharjee V.  Sarathi Choudhury, 2015 scc 1229, 2015 while dealing with a question whether the retention of stridhan by the husband or any other family members is a continuing offence or not, the division bench comprising of Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ held that the concept of “continuing offence” gets attracted from the date of deprivation of stridhan, for neither the husband nor any other family members can have any right over the stridhan and they remain the custodians The respondent contended before the Magistrate that the claim is barred by time and that she should have claimed it prior to their judicial separation. The Magistrate admitted the fact that the respondent and the appellant had entered into the wedlock. The magistrate treated her as an aggrieved person. But concluded that no domestic relationship existed between the parties and hence she is not entitled to file the application under Sec 12 of the 2005 Act. The Court taking reference of vario...

Patna High Court has held that Division Bench of a High Court cannot exercise its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order made, in a suit, by a Single Bench of the High Court. Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice I.A. Ansari and Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh observed that single Judge or a single Bench of a High Court is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the High Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016 =========================================================== ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE CHITRANJAN SAHAY VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. – MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .... .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. SHAURYA SUNIL, S/O SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUD...