Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:limitation act 36 of section 26

May 12 1913

Bugajewitz v. Adams

  • Decided on : 12-May-1913

Court : US Supreme Court

... 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 "in the manner provided by" 20, 21. The beginning of these two sections provides for the ... former may be controlled by an express limitation in 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 ... , 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 ... prostitute now. By the Act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134, 3, 34 Stat. 898, 899, any alien woman found practicing prostitution within 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 ...

May 02 1921

Newberry v. United States

  • Decided on : 02-May-1921

Court : US Supreme Court

... 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 ... 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 ... . 254 . 10. Section 2 of the Act of June 4, 1914, supra, if it could be regarded as an attempt to regulate nominations of Senators, based on the Amendment, would have no bearing on a prosecution under the Act of 1910-1911 for conduct occurring after that section expired by its own limitation. P. 256 U ... , 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 ... 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 ...

Oct 04 1950

Raghunath Hanumant Mane Vs. Sadashiv Damodar Datar

  • Decided on : 04-Oct-1950

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1951Bom270; (1950)52BOMLR871; ILR1951Bom114

... section (b) of Section 6 may perhaps be said to overlap in a technical sense. That, in our opinion, would not justify us in interpreting the provisions of Section 6(a) in the narrow and limited sense as suggested by the respondent because if the 1951 Bom./35 & 36 said construction is accepted, part of Section 6(a) which provides that the unamended Section 26, Civil Courts Act ... Section 6(a) in the narrow and limited sense as suggested by the respondent because if the 1951 Bom./35 & 36 said construction is accepted, part of Section 6(a) which provides that the unamended Section 26, Civil Courts Act will apply to pending suits will be rendered meaningless and nugatory. The respondent has asked us to hold that the present case is indirectly governed by Section ... section. By the amendment, the initial limit of Rs. 5,000 in regard to Civil Judges, Junior Division, is now raised to Rs. 10,000 and the limit within which this amount can be extended is raised from B8. 7,500 to Rs. 15,000. Then we have Section 4 of the new Act which purports to amend Section 26, Bombay Civil Courts Act. Before the amendment of Section 26 ...

May 31 1909

Mahabir Sahai and Ors. Vs. Oudh Bihari Pande and Anr.

  • Decided on : 31-May-1909

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1909)ILR31All590

... Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, and that therefore the Court could not recognise 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 ... 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 ...

May 31 1909

Oudh Bihari Pande and Anr. Vs. Mahabir Sahi and Ors.

  • Decided on : 31-May-1909

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.524

... the provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, and that, therefore, 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 ... 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 ...

Jun 03 1959

State of M.P. Vs. Kadore

  • Decided on : 03-Jun-1959

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1960MP180; 1960CriLJ914

... Section 116 ibid it would appear that the new Section 36 applies to all proceedings instituted alter the commencement of Act 26 of 1935. This means that in all such proceedings, the powers to be exercised under Section 30 must be limited to those provided by the new section. In other words, a Magistrate empowered under Section 30 cannot, unlike under the old Section ... Act and also to all proceedings pending in any Criminal Court on the date of such) commencement.'Reading together Clause (a) and the last part of Section 116 ibid it would appear that the new Section 36 applies to all proceedings instituted alter the commencement of Act 26 of 1935. This means that in all such proceedings, the powers to be exercised under Section 30 must be limited ... Act and the amendments made thereby shall apply to all proceedings instituted after the commencement of this Act and also to all proceedings pending in any Criminal Court on the date of such) commencement.'Reading together Clause (a) and the last part of Section 116 ibid it would appear that the new Section 36 applies to all proceedings instituted alter the commencement of Act 26 ...

Sep 14 1989

The Leather Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Centra ...

  • Decided on : 14-Sep-1989

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 69(1990)CLT201; 1990(25)ECC441

... limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Rule providing limitation for filing refund application being different from the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, by virtue of the provisions Under Section 29(2) of the Act, it shall be deemed as if the period prescribed by the said Rules is the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Act and Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act ... duty on the ground that the application was barred by limitation.2. It is alleged in the writ application that by notification No.93/67 dated 26.5.1967 the Central Government exempted the foot-wear falling under item No. 36 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 produced in any factory including the precincts thereof ... Limitation Act, it is the provision in the special or local law that will prevail and not the provisions of the Limitation Act except to the extent specified in the Section, namely;(i) that Section 3 shall apply as if the period prescribed by the special or local law were the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Act; and (ii) that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act ... that the provision contained in Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been completely lost sight of. In Sub-section (2), Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it has been provided that: Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply ...

Dec 11 1974

Badshah Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-1974

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1974WLN(UC)236

... 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. ... act falling within the purivew of Article 2 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In this view of the matter, 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 ... 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 done in good faith under the Act. As already pointed out ... 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 ... Limitation Act, 1908. From the evidence of the Director, Colonisation, Shri I.N. Kaul, it is clear that he had no knowledge at the time of passing the impugned order that the land bad been previously allotted by the Tehsildar. He has further deposed that he also did not pass any order for lodging a complaint against the plaintiff Under Section ...

Aug 15 1930

Somisetti Seshayya Chetty and Ors. Vs. Rolla Subbadu, minor by Next Fr ...

  • Decided on : 15-Aug-1930

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1930Mad991; (1930)59MLJ881

... Court in Shevdas Daulatram v. NarayanI.L.R.(1911) 36 Bom. 268. was dissented from in Madras in Murugesa Mudali y. Ramaswami Chettiar (1913) 26 M.L.J. 23, where it was held that the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act could be in voked in computing the period prescribed by Section 31 of the Limitation Act. The; reasoning in the judgment in Hira Singh v ... ) A. 67. by this Court in Murugesa Mudali v. Ramaswami Chettiar (1913) 26 M.L.J. 23.. and by the Calcutta High Court and therefore Section 31 of the Limitation Act does prescribe a period of limitation. Courts in dealing with questions of limitation should, as far as possi ble, place upon the Limitation Act a construction favourable to plaintiffs and adopting that principle here, this Letters Patent ... exactly in point here and which distinguished Bai Hemkore v. Masamalli I.L.R. (1902) 26 Bom. 782. was also dealt with by him. He states at page 1214 as follows:That section was really intended for a limited class of people to amend the schedule to the Limitation Act and substitute for them a longer period than the period which the schedule really mentions ... follows:That section was really intended for a limited class of people to amend the schedule to the Limitation Act and substitute for them a longer period than the period which the schedule really mentions.8. This case clearly supports the view of the Allahabad High Court. The view expressed by the Bombay High Court in Shevdas Daulatram v. NarayanI.L.R.(1911) 36 Bom ...

Sep 01 1994

Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator

  • Decided on : 01-Sep-1994

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1995]82CompCas77(Mad)

... 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. ... limitation prescribed under article 137 of the Limitation Act read with section 458A of the Companies Act and that the reckoning date for this purpose would be the date of the winding-up order. Thus, the period of limitation of three years from the date of the winding-up order after giving full benefit of section 458A of the Companies Act would be under article 137 of the Limitation Act ... limitation is three years under article 137 of the Limitation Act, even if the benefit of exclusion under section 458A of the Companies Act is not available to the official liquidator. If that argument is accepted, the present proceeding filed on March 2, 1982, is clearly barred by limitation. We cannot, however, accept the argument that article 137 of the Limitation Act applies and he limitation ... section 446(2)(b) of the Act was within time or not, has to be determined. In the words, in the period computed from the date the limitation commenced as per the relevant article in the Schedule to the Limitation Act till the date of filling of the application under section 446(2)(b) of the Act, the two periods stated in section 458A of the Act ...

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