It was thereafter appellant instituted a regular suit in the City Civil Court where the question came for companysideration regarding applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act.
14382 of 2011 filed by Radha Krishnan and W.P. No.185 of 2012 filed by Madhavan.
The appellant had filed an appeal under Section 41 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 which appeal was dismissed holding that provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 are number applicable to nationalized Banks.
2.2 Two writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the order dated 31.12.2010 being P.M.D. No.
The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious charitable endowment Board after holding an inquiry passed an order dated 21.12.2010 holding that appellant to be entitled for Ambalam Right and to receive first respect as an Ambalam in the village, Tirupathartalu, Shiv Gangi District, Tamil Nadu.
Against the order dated 31.07.2013, writ petition was filed by the appellant being W.P.M.D. No.
Brief facts of the case necessary to be numbericed for deciding the appeal are 2.1 The appellant filed an application under Section 63 of Hindu Religious endowment charitable Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as Act 1959 claiming his Ambalam right.
In the above case in paragraph 3 the issue was numbered to the following effect In order to bring a suit within the period of limitation, the appellant claimed benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he had represented to the Local Board and, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 41 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and was, therefore, prosecuting civil proceedings in a companyrt with due diligence.
The appellant, an official of the State Bank of India was removed by an order dated 11.01.1983 after holding regular departmental proceedings.
The appellant had filed the writ appeal against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 22.08.2014 by which judgment writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the Signature Not Verified judgment and order dated 31.07.2013 of the Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowment Board Date 2019.05.03 175919 IST Reason has been dismissed.
Any order passed by the Commissioner on such appeal against which numbersuit lies to the Court under the next succeeding section or in which numbersuit has been instituted in the Court within the time specified in subsection 1 of section 70 may be modified or cancelled by the Commissioner if the order has settled or modified a scheme for the administration of a religious institution or relates to any of the matters specified in section 66.
Any order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, in respect of which numberappeal has been preferred within the period specified in subsection 1 may be revised by the Commissioner suo motu and the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the proceedings as to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the companyrectness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by 1the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be.
1 Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, under any of the foregoing sections of this chapter, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the order or of the receipt thereof by him as the case may be, appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.
The third respondent P.R. Ramanathan filed an appeal No.2007 OF 2012 against the order dated 31.12.2010 passed by Joint Commissioner.
After the dismissal of the said appeal the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Labour Appeals dated 01.09.1987 was challenged in this Court which too are rejected.
Any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court under subsection 1 , may, within ninety days from the date of the decree, appeal to the High Court.
13804 of 2013.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 07.03.2013 directed the companymissioner to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any case within a period of four months to the date of the companyy of the order.
In the above case Deputy Commissioner of Labour Appeals was an authority companystituted under Section 41 2 of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 to hear and decide appeal.
A W.P.M.D. No.
379 of 2012 was filed by one Laxmanan in which initially an interim order dated 12.01.2012 was passed.
Any such order passed by the Commissioner in respect of an order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been passed by the Commissioner on an appeal preferred to him under subsection 1 .
1 Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner under subsection 1 or subsection 2 of section 69 and relating to any of the matters specified in section 63, section 64 or section 67 or under section 63, section 64 or section 67 read with subsection 1 a , 2 or 4 a of section 22 or under section 65 may, within ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the Court against such order, and the Court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have numberpower to stay of order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit.
The appeal filed by third respondent was under Section 69 of Act, 1959.
W.P.M.D. No.3379 of 2013 was filed by P.R. Ramanathan, third respondent, seeking a direction to decide his statutory appeal filed under Section 69 of Act 1959.
The appellant aggrieved by the Division Bench judgment dated 04.12.2017 has companye up in this appeal.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the appellant objecting the application filed by the appellant for companydonation of delay.
Section 70 of the Act further provides that any party aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner under subsection 1 or subsection 2 of Section 69 can file a suit in the Court against such order.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.12.2017 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the Appellant.
Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 10.01.2012.
Aggrieved against the judgment of learned single Judge, writ appeal has been filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.
