Skip to content


Mrs. Dr. Avtar Chawla Vs. Sehgal Papers Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.P. No. 123 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1985]57CompCas765(P& H)
ActsRent Control Act
AppellantMrs. Dr. Avtar Chawla
RespondentSehgal Papers Ltd.
Advocates: J.S. Narang, Adv.; A.C. Jain, Adv. for the official liquidator
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply.....goyal, j.1. this is an ejectment petition under the delhi rent control act against the company, sehgal papers ltd. it was transferred to the file of this court as the said company had been ordered to be wound up. however, i find that these proceedings have absolutely no bearing so far as the liquidation proceedings are concerned. though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that this petition once having been transferred to this court, should be disposed of here, yet i do not find any reason to do so. the petition is, therefore, ordered to be sent back to therent controller and permission is granted for its trial in accordance with law. the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the rent controller on march 25, 1985.
Judgment:

Goyal, J.

1. This is an ejectment petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act against the company, Sehgal Papers Ltd. It was transferred to the file of this court as the said company had been ordered to be wound up. However, I find that these proceedings have absolutely no bearing so far as the liquidation proceedings are concerned. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that this petition once having been transferred to this court, should be disposed of here, yet I do not find any reason to do so. The petition is, therefore, ordered to be sent back to theRent Controller and permission is granted for its trial in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on March 25, 1985.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //