2015 (7) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral)]. - By way of this order, we shall decide CWP Nos. 273 and 1775 of 2012 as challenge in both the petitions is to a similar order dated 4-7-2011, passed by the Revisional Authority namely the Joint Secretary (Revision), Government of India. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against order passed by the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to raise any meaningful argument against the applicability of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under 1944 Act or against correctness of the aforesaid judgment, but prays that the matter regarding condonation of delay may be left open to be finally decided by the revisional authority. 4. We have heard counsel for the pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are of the view that Section 14 of the 1963 Act is applicable to the proceedings under the 1962 Act in respect of an appeal provided under Section 128 and the time spent in the High Court in the abortive attempt to invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution will have to be excluded. After excluding the time in pursuing the litigation, the appeal filed before the Commission....