https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278797 Limitation for challenging a decision under Section 25 of Madras Act XXVIII of 1860 ran only from communication of the decision to the affected party, because an appeal period cannot begin before the party knows a decision has been made; the challenge was therefore treated as within time. Where the statutory scheme required the Settlement Officer personally to take evidence, reliance on a subordinate's report instead of conducting that step himself was an irregular and invalid exercise of power, rendering the decision void and not binding on the plaintiff. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 1883 00:00:00 +0521 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278797 Limitation for challenging a decision under Section 25 of Madras Act XXVIII of 1860 ran only from communication of the decision to the affected party, because an appeal period cannot begin before the party knows a decision has been made; the challenge was therefore treated as within time. Where the statutory scheme required the Settlement Officer personally to take evidence, reliance on a subordinate's report instead of conducting that step himself was an irregular and invalid exercise of power, rendering the decision void and not binding on the plaintiff. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Jan 1883 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278797