Skip to content


Jun 04 1952 (HC)

U. Kino Kharbangar Vs. U. Kyron and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... and gone through the papers. i find no reasons to condone the delay in the presentation of the appeal and it is doubtful whether section 5, indian limitation act at all applies to such proceedings as provided under the rules of the khasi states (administration of justice) order, 1950. in my opinion ..... 34 of the khasi states (administration of justice) order, 1950 provides that except in so far as provided by these rules, the indian limitation act, 1908 (act 9 of 1908) shall not apply to suits in which either or both parties are khasis, lushais or members of the backward tribes enumerated ..... , it does not. we are governed by rule 26 of the khasi states (administration of justice) order, 1950 which says that an appeal shall lie ..... in the high court and i must accordingly hold that the appeal not being presented within the time prescribed by rule 26, it must be construed to be presented out of time ..... in the thirteenth schedule to the government of india (provincial legislative assemblies) order, 1936. rule 36 makes no mention of the proceedings that are maintainable .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 12 1969 (HC)

Thangammal and ors. Vs. Murugammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1970Mad325; (1970)1MLJ460

..... perfectly open to the purchaser to sue for possession of the property within 12 years of suit under article 137 or article 138 of the limitation act.the learned additional city civil judge has not accepted this contention and he points out that articles 137 and 138 deal with suits by a ..... provision or fiction continues till the thing is severed and possession is secured by the purchaser. it follows that the superstructure sold under section 28 of the act is moveable property and the auction purchaser has title to the superstructure not as immoveable property but as moveable property. as the plaintiffs ..... purchaser, the superstructure should be treated as immoveable property. the right to possession clearly arises out ofvesting of the property in execution proceedings.section 28 of the act enacts that, for the purpose of the execution of a decree of the small cause court and for the purpose of deciding all ..... has done to the property whatever the judgment-debtor would have been bound to do to it if he had removed such thing.'section 28 of the act clearly provides that for the purpose of execution under any decree of the small cause court, thesuperstructure of a tenant of immoveablcproperty ..... of this court in sadayammal v. angammal : air1939mad610 though not directly in point, clearly enunciates the scope and ambit of the deeming provision under section 28.in that case a decree-holder in a small cause suit sought to attach the superstructure which the defendant, a tenant, would be entitled .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 31 1909 (PC)

Mahabir Sahai and ors. Vs. Oudh Bihari Pande and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1909)ILR31All590

..... the payment. as against this the decision in roshan singh v. mata din (1903) i.l.r. 26 all. 36 has been relied on, and the decree-holders urge that the part payment is a good part payment within the meaning of section 20 of the limitation act of 1877. the part payment made out of the proceeds of the timber was, if a part ..... payment at all, part payment on foot of the principal of the debt, and it is necessary, in order that the provisions of section 20 should apply in favour of the decree ..... court clearly put on proof that the part payment they relied on was a good part payment within the meaning of section 20. furthermore, if the decree-holders relied on part payment as being a part-payment within the meaning of section 20, it lay' on them to show that the part payment was in the hand-writing of the judgment-debtors .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 31 1909 (PC)

Oudh Bihari Pande and anr. Vs. Mahabir Sahi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.524

..... , the court could not recognise the payment. as against this the decision in roshan singh v. matadin 26 a. 36 has been relied on, and the decree-holders urge that the part payment is a good part payment within the meaning of section 20 of the limitation act of 1877. the part payment made out of the proceeds of the timber was, if a part ..... payment at all, part payment on foot of the principal of the debt, and it is necessary, in order that the provisions of section 20 should apply in favour of the decree ..... court clearly put on proof that the part payment they relied on was a good part payment within the meaning of section 20. furthermore if the decree-holders relied on part payment as being a part payment within the meaning of section 20, it lay on them to show that the part payment was in the hand-writing of the judgment-debtors .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 24 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Venkateswara Bank Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1979]120ITR207(Mad)

..... the case, the appellate tribunal was right in allowing the sum of rs. 26,032 as an admissible deduction under section 36(1)(ii) or under section 37(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. the assessee is a public limited company carrying on banking operations. on 29th december, 1967, it entered into ..... an agreement to transfer a substantial part of its business to the indian overseas bank ltd. at the time of the transfer, the assessee paid a sum of rs. 26 ..... not under section 36(1)(ii). the revenue has filed the reference questioning the correctness of the tribunal's conclusion on this aspect. 3. though in the question as framed as well as in the order of the tribunal the sum in dispute has been referred to as rs. 26,032, ..... , is only regarding the sum of rs. 17,922. 4. in the question, reference has been made to section 36(1)(ii). section 36(1), to the extent relevant, runs as follows : '36. (1) the deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein ..... the amount as ' retrenchment compensation ' while the assessee claimed it as ' gratuity '. in either case, it would not be a sum referred to in section 36(1)(ii). the amount could not, therefore, have been allowed as deduction under that provision. 6. we have, therefore, to consider the question of .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 02 1921 (FN)

Newberry V. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... be regarded as an expenditure or considered as a part of the sum fixed as the limit of expense. section 10 of the act (36 stat. 824), renumbered as 11 by the amendment (37 stat. 26), prescribes fine or imprisonment for a willful violation of any of its provisions. the act and amendment were passed before the adoption of the seventeenth amendment, providing for the election ..... people of the entire state: and, provided further, that in any case the candidate for senator receiving the highest number of votes shall be deemed elected." "sec. 3. that section two of this act shall expire by limitation at the end of three years from the date of its approval." approved june 4, 1914. mr. chief justice white, dissenting from the opinion, but ..... amendment might page 256 u. s. 255 be applicable in this controversy, if assisted by appropriate legislation, would be unimportant, since there is none. section 2, act of june 4, 1914, had expired by express limitation many months before newberry became a candidate, and counsel very properly disregarded it. because deemed appropriate in order effectively to regulate the manner of holding general ..... error to the district court of the united states for the western district of michigan syllabus 1. section 8 of the "federal corrupt practices act" (june 25, 1910, c. 392, 36 stat. 822; amended august 19, 1911, c. 33, 37 stat. 25), which undertakes to limit the amount of money which any candidate for the office of representative in congress or of united states .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 12 1913 (FN)

Bugajewitz V. Adams

Court : US Supreme Court

..... three years after she should have entered the united states was to be deported "as provided by sections twenty and twenty-one of this act." this section was amended by the act of march 26, 1910, c. 128, 2, 36 stat. 265, page 228 u. s. 591 and the limitation of three years was stricken out, but the amendment still refers to 20, 21, and orders deportation ..... the statute, while the latter must not be so controlled, and so held that the limitation in 3 of the act of february 20, 1907, was stricken out by the act of february 26, 1910, notwithstanding a reference in the latter act to a section in the former act in which the limitation was referred to. the facts, which involve the power of congress to deport aliens and ..... the construction of the acts of congress relating to deportation of alien prostitutes, are stated in the opinion. page 228 u ..... "in the manner provided by" 20, 21. the beginning of these two sections provides for the taking into custody .....

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 08 2013 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi-i Vs. Arcane Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... -08.2. the issue raised is whether interest of rs.1,26,64,315/- paid to m/s dharti investments and holding limited on loan of rs.25 crores could be allowed as expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the income tax act, 1961 (act, for short) and rs.2,32,582/- on account of ..... travel/statutory fees/audit fees etc can be allowed as expenditure under section 37 of the act.3. the assessing ..... suitable terms and conditions and to do the consultancy business in the construction and allied activities. 5. in western indian vegetables products limited versus citcitcit, (1954) 26 itr151 bombay high court had examined the concept and noticed the difference between commencement and setting up of business and it was observed ..... officer had disallowed the said amounts as expenditure under section 37/36(1)(iii) on the ground that the business of the assessee had commenced/was set up on 5th ..... july, 2006. loan from m/s dharti investments and holding limited, it is stated, was taken on 16th .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 11 1974 (HC)

Badshah Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1974WLN(UC)236

..... i am clearly of the opinion that the suit was governed by article 2 of the limitation act, 1908 and is barred by time.12. i further find that the suit is barred under section 26 of the act. section 26 provides that no suit shall lie, against the state government or any public servant for anything ..... .8. the suit is governed either by article 2 or article 36 of the limitation act, 1908 and was barred by time.9. the suit was triable by a civil court and it was not barred under section 25 or 26 of the act.the learned additional district judge in the result dismissed the suit. ..... respondent no. 2, dated 2-1-61 and 14-1-61' certain more pleas such as limitation and jurisdiction were also raised. it was also pleaded that the suit was barred under section 26 of the act. on the above pleadings of the parties, the learned additional district judge framed the following issues:1 ..... the learned additional district judge committed gross error in holding the suit to be barred by time. he contends that article 2 or article 36 of the limitation act, 1908 has no applicability to the present case. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the state has supported the judgment of ..... aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff has preferred this appeal4. the findings arrived at by the learned additional district judge would reveal that the suit was mainly dismissed on the ground of limitation.5 .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 01 1994 (HC)

Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1995]82CompCas77(Mad)

..... to enforce against the directors a claim which had already become time barred whether under article 36 or article 120 of the limitation act.' 26. the ruling of the division bench was followed and the reasoning was adopted with respect to an application under section 469 of the companies act, 1956, by a learned single judge of this court in malabar petroleum co. v. continental oil ..... official liquidator filed in support of the application merely stated in paragraph 7 thereof that the claim was not barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in section 458a of the companies act, 1956, and sections 18 and 19 of the limitation act, 1963. apart from that sentence, the report did not contain any particulars as to how the claim was in time. in ..... full bench proceeded to conclude its judgment in the following words (at page 122 of 78 comp cas) : 'the correct period of limitation for claims made under section 446(2)(b) of the companies act, is the relevant article in the limitation act, 1963, as a applicable to the nature of the claims. whether the claim is enforceable or not is to be determined with ..... certain moneys, a suit by him in the name of the company for the recovery of the said moneys would have been dismissed as barred by the limitation act, the court would have no power under section 186 to order payment to the liquidators of the moneys so claimed. 28. if the said test is applied, there can be no doubt that the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //