9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act in relation to the Land Requisition Act. 2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under special laws. 3. Whether Section 6 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under special laws. 4. Analysis of the legislative intent behind Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 5. Comparison of the language and applicability of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Limitation Act in special cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed the interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act concerning the Land Requisition Act. The court examined whether the Land Requisition Act's provision for a different period of limitation for appeals falls under the purview of Section 29(2) and concluded that it does. The court emphasized that the special law prescribing a different limitation period from the first schedule of the Limitation Act triggers the application of Section 29(2). 2. The court deliberated on the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under special laws. It was argued that Section 5 should apply to condone delays in filing appeals under special laws. However, the court held that unless expressly stated by the legislature, Section 5 does not automatically apply to appeals governed by special laws. The court emphasized the legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to limitation periods set by specific statutes. 3. The judgment also discussed whether Section 6 of the Limitation Act should be deemed applicable to appeals under special laws. The court rejected this contention, stating that Section 6 cannot be automatically applied to appeals under special laws based on the scheme outlined in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 4. The court analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the importance of reconciling conflicts between different sections of the Act. The court highlighted the need to interpret the provision in a manner that aligns with the legislature's objective of ensuring timely appeals and avoiding arbitrary extensions of limitation periods. 5. Furthermore, the judgment compared the language and applicability of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Limitation Act in special cases. The court clarified that while Section 3 mandates the dismissal of suits filed beyond the limitation period, Sections 4 and 5 do not automatically apply to appeals under special laws unless expressly provided by the legislature. The court underscored the significance of legislative intent in determining the application of specific sections of the Limitation Act. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation and application of the Limitation Act in the context of appeals governed by special laws, emphasizing the need to adhere to statutory limitation periods as prescribed by the legislature.
|
