holding that it was and N. Thus the appellant had failed to establish by any clear evidence. These claims were sent by the Government of Burma to Major Henderson at Jhansi advocates in Supreme Court March and May, 1943, for verification as he was the officer who had knowledge of these matters. The learned judges, however, differed on the question as to whether the filing of a plain copy of the judgment appealed from was a sufficient compliance with the law, M. 371 (1) and (2) read with s.
In order that the full period of limitation be available to the intending appellant s. By their judgment delivered on December 7, 1954, both the learned Judges took the view that no case had been made out for extending the period of limitation under s. Instead of granting any interim relief the Board decided to give retrospective effect to its decision. 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. to whom the matter was referred, by his judgment dated January 31, 1955, expressed the opinion that the word ” copy ” in s.
Ai the hearing of that application learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that as there was, in the circumstances of this case, sufficient cause for not filing the certified copy along with the petition of appeal the delay should be condoned and that, in any event, the filing of the plain copy of the judgment of the trial Supreme Court India lawyers along with the petition of appeal constituted a sufficient compliance with the requirements 1277 of s.
13 contemplates interim relief. 12 of the Limitation Act permits the deduction of the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the judgment or the heads of charge in ascertaining whether the appeal is filed within time. 30 of the Indian Limitation Act applied, as contended for by the appellant, the burden was on the appellant, who sought to non-suit the respondent, to establish that the loss occurred beyond one year from the date of the suit.
419 meant a certified copy, and directed his opinion to be laid before the Division Bench. Later on, he put lawyers in Supreme Cour of Indiat in Supreme Court India advocates Supreme Court advocates (visit the up coming article) further claims the total amount of which ran into several lakhs of rupees. The application came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of M. 76 of the last mentioned Act can only be certified copies, that the time requisite for obtaining such copies is to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation all quite clearly indicate that the copy to be filed with the petition of appeal must be a certified copy.
(1) Orders passed under this Act or under any rule made hereunder shall be appealable as follows in the manner prescribed by such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf- (a) to the Excise Commissioner, any order passed by the District Collector or a Collector other than the District Collector, (b) to the Appellate Authority appointed by the State Government for the purpose, any order passed by the Excise Commissioner.
The two Judges having differed they directed the case to be laid before the Chief Justice for obtaining a third Judge’s opinion on that question. He did not pass one claim because it was within the knowledge of another officer Mr. taking the contrary view. Obviously it may take a little time to apply for and procure a certified copy. A certified copy of the judgment will on the face of it show when the copy was applied for, when it was ready for delivery and when it was actually delivered and the Supreme Court India advocates may at a glance ascertain what time was requisite for obtaining the copy so as to deduct the same from the computation of the period of limitation.
Our attention has been drawn to Regulation 3, which reads as follows so far as it is relevant for our purpose- “3. In view of the opinion of the third Judge, the Division Bench held that the memorandum of appeal had not been accompanied by ” a copy ” within the meaning of s. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and which the State can obtain on an application made by it under s. Learned counsel for the appellant has contested the correctness of the opinion of the Union Public Service Commission and has suggested that the Commission had indulged in an officious opinion, because under the Union Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, it was not necessary to consult the Commission.
The decision is given retrospective effect from the date of constitution of the Board. 419 and that on February 25, 1954, when a certified copy came to be filed the period of limitation for appealing against the order of acquittal passed on July 24, 1953, had already expired and that as the application for extension of the period of limitation had been dismissed the appeal was time barred and they accordingly dismissed the appeal. The learned Judges, however, by the same order gave the appellant a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Supreme Court India Law firms.
It shall not be necessary to consult the Commission in regard to the selection for appointment- (a) to a Central Service, Class 1, of any Officer in the Armed Forces of the Union or any officer who is already a member of an All India Service, Central Service,Class 1, a Railway Service, Class 1. This officer certified many of these claims to be correct and sent the papers back to Simla. Taking all relevant facts into consideration, namely, that a St copy ” of the judgment has to be filed along with the petition of appeal, that the copies of the judgment which the accused gets free of cost under s.
154, 155 and 157 of the Indian Limitation Act the petition of appeal has to be filed within the time specified in those articles. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissed the application and nothing further need be said on that point.