9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 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 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is restored to the Joint Secretary (Revision), Government of India (Revisional Authority) for deciding the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Joint Secretary (Revision), Government of India (Revisional Authority) on 2-2-2015. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
