Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal under section 25(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned BIFR order and whether limitation ran only from the date of issuance of such certified copy.
Analysis: The statutory appeal provision required filing within forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order was issued to the aggrieved party, and the procedure framed under section 13(1) expressly mandated filing of a certified copy of the order appealed against with the memorandum of appeal. The appellate authority's own press note also required the aggrieved party to apply for the copy immediately after the order and not wait for receipt through ordinary channels. On that construction, mere receipt of an order copy in the normal course could not be treated as compliance with the requirement of a certified copy for computing limitation. The appellate authority therefore erred in treating the appeal as within time despite the absence of proper steps to obtain and file the certified copy.
Conclusion: The appeal was barred by limitation, and the writ petitioner succeeded in challenging the admission of the appeal and the stay order.