You may also like...
-
15.In the light of the legal proposition enunciated above, this court is of the opinion that the notices issued by the fourth respondent are not hit by limitation. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the findings so rendered by the CESTAT. 16.In the result, both the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P.,J.) For Petitioner : Mr. J. Sivanandaraaj in both the Writ Petitions For Respondents : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda Senior Standing Counsel in both the Writ Petitions COMMON ORDER R. MAHADEVAN, J.
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 20, 2022
-
-
JURISDICTION INDIRA BANERJEE; J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ. MARCH 2, 2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 32875-32876 OF 2018 F. LIANSANGA & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 does not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications
by Sekar Reporter · Published March 8, 2022