w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



RAJAJINAGAR FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER ,RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

    W.P.29237 Of 1997

    Decided On, 07 January 1999

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA

    For the Appearing Parties: K.Srinivas Murthy, Udaya Holla, Advocates.



Judgment Text

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.


( 1 ) THE first petitioner is a financial company and the 2nd petitioner is its shareholder. The petitioners filed an application as per Annexure-D dated 8-7-1997 to the Reserve Bank of India for registration under Section 45 (IA) of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act. The said application was returned vide Annexure-H on the ground that a non-banking company should have submitted application before 8-7-1997 and the application was not submitted by the petitioner within six months from the date of the Act came into force.


( 2 ) ). Mr. Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application submitted by the petitioners as per Annexure-D was in time in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of, Smt. E. P. Janu Amma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhi-kode, AIR 1980 Kerala 175 in support of the submission.


( 3 ) WITH regard to commencement and termination of time, Section 9 of the General Clauses Act reads as under:-"9 (1 ). In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from", and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to". A reading of the above provision makes it clear that for the purpose of commencement of time, the first in a series of days or any other period of time must be excluded. Admittedly the application was submitted by the petitioners on 9-7-1997. If the first day is excluded as contemplated under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the application would be in time. The Counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to above. In that case the Court while considering as to whether the application for reference under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was within time or not has interpreted the aforesaid provision of General Clauses Act has held that the day of receipt of the application should be excluded for computing the period. In view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act and the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in the decision referred to above, the impugned communication at Annexure-H is not correct and the same is liable to be quashed.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/> ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter at Annexure-H is quashed. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to receive the application from the petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
O R