<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1979 (3) TMI 211 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199971</link>
    <description>A statutory authority exercising judicial power to decide disputes, record evidence, follow civil procedure and issue binding enforceable orders is a court for limitation purposes, not merely a persona designata. On that basis, the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act. An application to restore a compensation claim dismissed for default was treated as an application to set aside dismissal for default and was therefore subject to the specific limitation period, not the residuary article. The restoration request was found to be time-barred, and the order restoring the claim was quashed, with the matter remitted for consideration of the delay question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 10:26:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (3) TMI 211 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199971</link>
      <description>A statutory authority exercising judicial power to decide disputes, record evidence, follow civil procedure and issue binding enforceable orders is a court for limitation purposes, not merely a persona designata. On that basis, the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act. An application to restore a compensation claim dismissed for default was treated as an application to set aside dismissal for default and was therefore subject to the specific limitation period, not the residuary article. The restoration request was found to be time-barred, and the order restoring the claim was quashed, with the matter remitted for consideration of the delay question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>