TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in computing the three-year period for filing an application under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, the first day, being the date of appointment of the liquidator, had to be excluded under section 9 of the General Clauses Act. (ii) Whether the application filed on the next working day was in time where the last day of the prescribed period fell on a day when the court was closed, under section 10 of the General Clauses Act.
Issue (i): Whether, in computing the three-year period for filing an application under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, the first day, being the date of appointment of the liquidator, had to be excluded under section 9 of the General Clauses Act.
Analysis: The period under section 235 was expressed as three years from the date of the first appointment of a liquidator. The word "from" in section 236 of the Indian Companies Act attracted the ordinary rule of computation embodied in section 9 of the General Clauses Act, namely that the first day in the series is excluded. The presence of the word "within" did not alter the method of computation, because it only described the time within which the application had to be made. Section 9 was treated as statutory recognition of the settled rule that in computing time the first day is excluded and the last day included.
Conclusion: The first day was required to be excluded, and the application was within time.
Issue (ii): Whether the application filed on the next working day was in time where the last day of the prescribed period fell on a day when the court was closed, under section 10 of the General Clauses Act.
Analysis: Section 10 applies where an act or proceeding is required or permitted to be done within a prescribed period and the court is closed on the last day. Unlike a condition precedent tied to the existence of a substantive fact before filing, the provision here merely fixed the time for initiating proceedings. The limitation under section 235 was therefore treated as a prescribed period for filing the application, so that filing on the next day after the court reopened satisfied the statutory requirement. The earlier insolvency authorities were distinguished on the ground that they concerned a different statutory scheme and a true condition precedent.
Conclusion: The application was also saved by section 10 and was not barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The limitation objection failed on both grounds, the appeal succeeded, and the matter was sent back for disposal in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes filing an application within a period computed from a stated event, the first day is excluded in computing time under section 9 of the General Clauses Act, and if the last day falls on a court holiday, section 10 permits filing on the next open day.
TaxTMI 
