https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456976 In computing limitation for a Letters Patent appeal under the Rules of Court, the majority held that the rules operated as a special or local law, so Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 attracted Section 12(2) and allowed exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree. The phrase "within 60 days and not more" was treated as fixing the limitation period, not as expressly excluding statutory exclusion of copy-preparation time; the appeal was therefore treated as within time and the earlier Full Bench view was disapproved. Raghubar Dayal, J. dissented, holding that the rule fixed an outer limit and excluded enlargement, so Section 12(2) did not apply. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456976 In computing limitation for a Letters Patent appeal under the Rules of Court, the majority held that the rules operated as a special or local law, so Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 attracted Section 12(2) and allowed exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree. The phrase "within 60 days and not more" was treated as fixing the limitation period, not as expressly excluding statutory exclusion of copy-preparation time; the appeal was therefore treated as within time and the earlier Full Bench view was disapproved. Raghubar Dayal, J. dissented, holding that the rule fixed an outer limit and excluded enlargement, so Section 12(2) did not apply. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Nov 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456976