Skip to content


Options Dock ▼

Judgment Search Results Home > Search Phrase: limitation act 1963 Court: supreme Page 1 of about 109,145 results (0.274 seconds)

Nov 22 1968 (SC)

Tilokchand and Motichand and ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1970SC898; (1969)1SCC110; [1969]2SCR824; [1970]25STC289(SC)

..... under s. 30(a) of the limitation act, 1963 as art. 62 of the indian limitation act, 1908 prescribed fife same period of limitation. a suit for recovery of tax or other levy illegally collected was governed by art. 62 and not by art. 120, see a1. venkata ..... the payments under coercion. a suit for the recovery of the money on this ground instituted on january 1, 1964 would be governed by article 24 of the limitation act, 1963 and the period of limitation would be three years from the dates in 1959 and 1960 when the money was received by fife respondents. the petitioners cannot obtain an extension of fife period ..... respect of a claim under art. 32 of the constitution though such claim is not the subject of any express statutory bar of limitation. if the right to a property is extinguished by prescription under s. 27 of the limitation act, 1963 the petitioner has no subsisting right which can be enforced under art. 32 (see sobhraj odharmal v. slate of rajasthan(2). in ..... applied to a suit for recovery of money paid under a mistake of law. section 17(1)(c) of the limitation act 1963 now provides that in the case of a suit for relief from the consequences of a mistake the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2001 (SC)

Syndicate Bank Vs. Mr. Prabha D. Naik and anr. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC1968; II(2001)BC304(SC); [2001]105CompCas385(SC); JT2001(4)SC133; (2001)2MLJ97(SC); 2001(3)SCALE53; (2001)4SCC713; [2001]2SCR714; 2001(2)LC1031(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1

..... apply; on the other hand, a suit filed on the basis of the cause of action arising outside the portuguese law will be governed by the provisions of the indian limitation act. 1963'. 4. during the course of hearing of these appeals, the reasonings as setforth in cadar construction's case (supra) have been relied upon and it was contended that in any ..... parliament and subsequently received the assent of the president on 5th october, 1963 and it came into force on 1st january, 1964 as the limitation act 1963 (act 36 of 1963), sub-section 1 of section 1 provides that the act may be called limitation act, 1963 and sub-section 2 of section 1 specifically provides that the act shall be made applicable to the whole of india except the state ..... goa, daman and diu only, is the local law within the meaning of section 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963. this court further held that these provisions of the portuguese civil code have to be read in the limitation act, 1963 as if the schedule to the limitation act stands amended mutatis mutandis and question of any repugnancy does not and cannot arise. the earlier decision [(justiniano ..... the state of goa, daman & diu, is the focal point for consideration in this appeal. needless to record that section 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963 contains the provisions for savings of the limitation act which expressly provides that the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1989 (SC)

Mahabir Kishore and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1990]69CompCas16(SC); JT1989(3)SC327; (1989)4SCC1a

..... the appellants in which case the suit would be within time. counsel further submits that the high court while rightly discussing that section 17 of the limitation act, 1963 was applicable, erred in not applying that section to the facts of the instant case, wherefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. ..... week after the letter dated 17.10.1961 or in or about september, 1962, the suit would be within the period of limitation under article 113 of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963.28. in the result, we set aside the judgment of the high court, allow the appeal and remand the suit. the ..... the high court took the view that article 113 read with section 17, and not article 24, of the schedule to the limitation act 1963, was applicable; and held that the limitation began to run from 17.10.1961 on which date the government decided not to charge extra 7 per cent on the auction ..... error. it was accordingly held that the writ petition filed by the appellants were within the period of limitation prescribed under article 113 of the schedule read with section 23 of the limitation act, 1963.26. it is thus a settled law that in a suit for refund of money paid by mistake of ..... it though it might have been paid voluntarily, subject, however, to questions of estoppel, waiver, limitation or the like. on the question of limitation, it was held that section 17(1)(c) of the limitation act, 1963 would be applicable and that where a suit will be to recover 'monies paid under a mistake of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1976 (SC)

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1977SC282; 1976(0)KLT810(SC); (1976)4SCC634; [1977]1SCR996; 1977(9)LC16(SC)

..... 's case (supra) said that it would require serious consideration whether applications to courts under other provisions, apart from civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, are included within article 137 of the limitation act, 1963 or not. the athani municipal council case (supra) is a two judge bench decision. nityananda joshi's case (supra) is a three judge bench decision.13. the ..... labour court, a tribunal which was not a court governed by the civil or criminal procedure codes, and, therefore, the applications are not governed by article 137 of the limitation act, 1963.10. in nityananda m. joshi and ors. v. life insurance corporation of india and ors. : (1969)iillj711sc the appellants filed applications against the respondent under section 33c( ..... compensation of rs. 19,367.60. the board raised several objections. one of the objections was that the petition was barred by time under article 137 of the limitation act, 1963. the board contended. that the notice intimating the fixing of the compensation was served on 4 march, 1969 and therefore the petition was barred by time. the respondent ..... second the applications to the labour court were time barred under article 137 of the limitation act, 1963. this court held as follows : the alteration in the 1963 limitation act in article 137, namely, the inclusion of the words 'other proceedings' in the long title to the 1963 limitation act, the omission of the preamble and the change in the definition so as to include .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 1995 (SC)

Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1995SC2272; JT1995(5)SC296; 1995(4)SCALE438; (1995)5SCC5; [1995]Supp2SCR1

..... section 18 governing appeals by aggrieved parties will be computed keeping in view the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the limitation act, 1963 such proceedings will attract section 29(2) of the limitation act and consequently section 5 of the limitation act would also be applicable to such proceedings. appellate authority will have ample jurisdiction to consider the question whether delay in filing such ..... onwards would apply to proceedings of such courts on its own force and in that eventuality provisions contained in section 29(2) for applying sections 4 to 24 of limitation act, 1963 to such court proceedings would be rendered otiose and redundant. mr. nariman tried to get out of this situation by submitting that because of provisions of first part of ..... being not a court but a persona designata it has no power to condone the delay in filing appeal by invoking the provisions contained in section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. as noted earlier the said order of the appellate authority was confirmed by the high court in civil revision petition moved by the appellant and that is how the ..... . amsom and besom, kerala : [1977]1scr996 . in that decision this court was concerned with similar question whether article 137 of the limitation act, 1963 could be made applicable to petitions under indian telegraph act, 1885. under the said act petition could be filed under section 16(5) by anyone claiming financial compensation against electricity board which tried to put up electricity poles in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2008 (SC)

T. Kaliamurthi and anr. Vs. Five Gori Thaikal Wakf and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2009SC840; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)462; (SCSuppl)2009(1)CHN25; JT2008(9)SC115; 2009(1)MhLj43; (2008)7MLJ534(SC); 2008(11)SCALE52; (2008)9SCC306

..... the learned counsel for the respondents, the ensuing discussion on some of the other aspects is very important.27. section 107 provides that nothing in the limitation act, 1963 would apply to any suit for possession of immovable property, comprised in any wakf or for any interest in such property. therefore, for the application ..... parties, if no retrospective effect is given.17. the decision of the appellate court was based on an erroneous application under section 10 of the limitation act, 1963 which was not applicable or relevant to the issues involved in the case and therefore to that extent, the finding of first appellate court was ..... be filed until 31.12.1970 if the transfers were made between 14.8.1947 and 7.5.1954.3. as per section 31 of the limitation act, 1963, it was evident that if the plaintiff's right had not been affected, he could file the suit. it had been stated that the ..... , we may note that the high court, in the impugned judgment, has not given its opinion whether article 96 of the limitation act, 1963 would apply or article 134-b of the limitation act, 1908 would apply in the present case. without going into this, the high court instead held that in view of the ..... wakf properties were by the persons who were holding them in trust and, therefore, on its understanding of the scope of section 10 of the limitation act, 1963 held that the alienations did not meet the legal requirements for a plea of adverse possession against the trust. keeping in mind the findings of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2008 (SC)

Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)423; 2008(2)ARBLR139(SC); 2008(3)AWC2908(SC); 2008(5)CTC741; JT2008(6)SC22; (2008)5MLJ431(SC); 2008(6)SCALE748; (2008)7SCC169; 2008AIRSCW4182; 2008(4)AIRKarR428

..... have applied to arbitration, as arbitrators are private tribunals and not courts. section 43 of the ac act, apart from making the provisions of limitation act, 1963 applicable to arbitrations, reiterates that limitation act applies to proceedings in court. therefore, the provisions of limitation act, 1963 apply to all proceedings under the ac act, both in court and in arbitration, except to the extent expressly excluded by the provisions of ..... be set aside, the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the order of the court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the limitation act, 1963, for the commencement of the proceedings with respect to the dispute so submitted. if the period between the commencement of the arbitration proceedings till the award is set aside by ..... be governed by article 116 of the schedule to the limitation act. 4.2 section 43 of the ac act, relates to limitation and it is extracted below: 43. limitation. - (1) the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court. (2) for the purposes of this section and the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963), an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2004 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC1596; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)399; 2004(2)AWC1830(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(4)CHN67; 2004(3)CTC53; 2004(164)ELT375(SC); JT2004(2)SC183; 2004(4)KarLJ465; 2004(2)SCALE285; (2004)2S

..... courts of law.'26. however, the said view was later on not accepted to be correct.27. despite the rigours of section 3 of the limitation act, 1963, the provisions thereof are required to be construed in a broad based and liberal manner. we need not refer to the decisions of this court in ..... the same arose immediately after the judgment was passed by 'the tribunal' on 18.4.1966 and, thus, in terms of article 58 of the limitation act, 1963, they were required to be filed within a period of three years from the said date, as despite the fact that the special leave petition was ..... judge as also the high court have recorded a concurrent opinion that the respondents were entitled to the benefits of sections 14 and 15 of the limitation act, 1963. we have no reason to take a different view.18. it is beyond any cavil that in the event, the respondent was held to ..... court held:'7. the crucial question is whether the suit is barred by limitation? section 3 of the limitation act, 1963 (for short, 'the act') postulates that the limitation can be pleaded. if any proceedings have been laid after the expiry of the period of limitation, the court is bound to take note thereof and grant appropriate relief and ..... regard to the plea raised by the plaintiff-respondent in the aforementioned suits as regards the applicability of sections 14 and 15 of the limitation act, 1963, the trial court held that the suits had been filed within the stipulated period. the high court in appeal also affirmed the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2004 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC2027(SC); 2004(52)BLJR1214; 2004(2)CTC189; 2004(166)ELT290(SC); [2004(2)JCR204(SC)]; JT2004(Suppl1)SC20; 2004(4)KarLJ476; (2004)137PLR298; 2004(3)SCALE23; (2004)3

..... came to be dismissed by the high court forming an opinion that civil suit was an appropriate remedy, is liable to be excluded from calculation under section 14 of the limitation act, 1963. however, mr. malhotra, the learned senior counsel for the appellants would not agree with such propositions and made his submissions. according to him, the west coast paper mills ..... 80 of the code whereunder notice is mandatorily required to be given before filing the civil suit has to be excluded from computing the period of limitation under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the limitation act, 1963. secondly, the period between 5th january, 1972 and 29th october, 1973 during which the civil writ petition remained pending for the identical relief based on ..... finding recorded by the trial court as also the high court that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of sections 14 and 15 of the limitation act, 1963 has been expressly upheld by the 3-judges bench holding, 'we have no reason to take a different view'.16. we are clearly of the opinion that the suit filed ..... complaint under section 41 of the act (registered as complaint no. 4/1966) came to be filed before the railway rates tribunal by the west coast paper mills limited and this related to the period 2nd october, 1966 to 14th august, 1972 and included certain commodities which were not the subject matter of complaint no. 4/1963. this complaint came to be decided .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2004 (SC)

Gopal Sardar Vs. Karuna Sardar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN164; 2004(3)SCALE36; (2004)4SCC252

..... on appeal shall lie to the district judge if made within sixty days from the date of the order:provided further that the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 (act 36 of 1963) shall apply to an appeal under this section. ''14-o. appeal - any person who is aggrieved by any determination made by the prescribed authority under section 14n may, within ..... by filing a revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. the high court held that the period under article 137 in the schedule of the limitation act, 1963 (for short 'limitation act') was applicable to the case. in that view, the high court upheld the order passed by the munsif court condoning the delay for making the application. the high court ..... as a court. further, this court taking note of section 29(2) as it stood in the limitation act, 1908 and section 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963, expressed the view that by virtue of section 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963, the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act were automatically applicable. a division bench of the calcutta high court in serish maji (supra) has rightly ..... ]4scr982 , in which it was held that section 417 cr.p.c. excluded application of section 5 of the limitation act on a construction of section 29(2)(b) of the old limitation act of 1908 could be applied under the corresponding provisions of the limitation act, 1963. the decision of that case turned upon the facts of that case in criminal appeals by comparison of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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