STATE OF M.P & Anr. v. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Judgment
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 361 STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA (Civil Appeal No. 3498 of 2008) AUGUST 06, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] A B Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983: s.19 - Applicability of s.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to C revision filed uls.19 of the Adhiniyam of 1983 - Held: s.19 does not contain any express rider on the power of the High Court to entertain an application for revision after the expiry of the prescribed period of three months - On the contrary, High Court is conferred with suo moto power, to call for the D record of an award at any time - It cannot therefore be said that the legislative intent was to exclude the applicability of s.5 of the Limitation Act to s.19 of the Adhiniyam of 1983 - Delay in filing revision is condonable - Matter remanded to High Court to examine same on merits - Limitation Act, 1963 E -s.5.
Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: There is no express exclusion of applicability of Section 5 to Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh F Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 nor any evidence to suggest that the legislative intent was to bar the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on Section 19 of the Adhiniyam. [Para 39] [375-F] Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company 2004 (II) MPJR SN 55; Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company 2004 MLJ 374 - Disapproved. 361 G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R.. A Nasiruudin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577: 2003 (1) SCR 634; Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470: 2001 (3) Suppl.
SCR 619 - held inapplicable. B c D E F
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.