2013 (11) TMI 650

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inal authority was on 27.03.2012. The Amendment came into force on 28.05.2012. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in its contention that the appeal should have been taken up on file in accordance with the regulations in force prior to 28.05.2012. In case the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal i.e. three months is taken into account, it cannot be said that the appeal was barred by limit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal was rejected primarily on the ground that it was filed subsequent to the period of limitation. The said order is under challenge in the writ petition mainly on the ground that the period of limitation has to be calculated taking into account the date of the impugned order and not the date on which the appeal was preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng found that the appeal was preferred beyond the period of three months, it was rejected. 5. The materials available on record clearly show that the order passed by the original authority was on 27.03.2012. The Amendment came into force on 28.05.2012. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in its contention that the appeal should have been taken up on file in accordance with the regulations in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X