REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Decd.Narayandas Appellant

V/S

GOPALDAS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

OM PRAKASH VS. ASHWANI KUMAR BASSI [REFERRED TO]
MANGU RAM RAM PERSHAD GONDAMAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MUKRI GOPALAN VS. CHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN VS. SITA RAM AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
SINGH ENTERPRISES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAMSHEDPUR [REFERRED TO]
CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]
NOHARLAL VERMA VS. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
BEHARILAL CHAURASIYA VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA BAI VS. BAIJNATH SINGH CHANDEL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SAGIR VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the following question :-

(2.) There is a delay of 34 days in filing the present revision, therefore, applicant has filed I.A. No.6730/2014 for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) Opposing the I.A., learned counsel for the respondent has raised an issue that the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short "the Act") is a self-contained code and though Section 23-E of the Act provides for the limitation for filing the revision petition but there is no provision under the Act for condoning the delay, therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act has no application and delay cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

DECD.NARAYANDAS Vs. GOPALDAS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address