Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:Limitation Act, 1963 Court:Supreme

Sep 23 1965

Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam and Anr. Vs. Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) by ...

  • Decided on : 23-Sep-1965

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1966SC1603; [1966]1SCR908

... express no opinion on the interpretation of Art. 134-B of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 or Art. 96 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Under Art. 96 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the starting point of limitation in such a case would be the date of the appointment of the ... Limitation Act, 1963, the starting point of limitation in such a case would be the date of the appointment of the plaintiff as manager of the endowment, but this Article cannot be considered to be a legislative recognition of the law existing before 1929.We hold that by the operation of Art. 144 read with s. 28 of the Indian Limitation Act ... -kachalam Pillai A.I.R. 1917 Mad 706. He argued that this view has received legislative sanction in Art. 96 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. He relied upon the following observations in Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemania Kumari Debi I.L.R. (1904) Cal 129 'the ... plaintiff being a minor at the commencement of the period of limitation was entitled to the benefit of s. 7 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (Act XV of 1877) corresponding to s, 6 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, and was entitled to institute the suit within three ... Limitation Act 1877. In the present case, there was no mathadhipathi in existence in 1915 when limitation commenced to run. Nor is there any question of the minority of a mathadhipathi entitled to sue in 1915 or of applying s. 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.For these reasons, we hold that the time under Art. 144 of the Indian Limitation Act ...

Sep 20 1965

Atyam Veerraju and Ors. Vs. Pechetti Venkanna and Ors.

  • Decided on : 20-Sep-1965

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1966SC629; [1966]1SCR831

... Limitation Act, 1908 [Act IX of 1908] and the corresponding s. 28 and Art. 144 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 [Act XV of 1877], s. 29 and Art. 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1871 [Act IX of 1871] and s. I, Clause 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1859 [Act ... Limitation Act, 1871 [Act IX of 1871] and s. I, Clause 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1859 [Act XIV of 1859]. Nor was the title of the deity extinguished during the period from 1929 to 1949 by the operation of s. 28 read with Art. 134-B introduced in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 by the limitation [Amendment] Act [Act ... Limitation Act 1877 [Act XV of 1877], s. 29 and Art. 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1871 [Act IX of 1871] and s. I, Clause 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1859 [Act XIV of 1859]. Nor was the title of the deity extinguished during the period from 1929 to 1949 by the operation of s. 28 read with Art. 134-B introduced in the Indian Limitation Act ... Act XV of 1877], s. 29 and Art. 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1871 [Act IX of 1871] and s. I, Clause 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1859 [Act XIV of 1859]. Nor was the title of the deity extinguished during the period from 1929 to 1949 by the operation of s. 28 read with Art. 134-B introduced in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 by the limitation ... -in-interest acquired title to the suit lands by prescription and the suit is barred by limitation U, therefore, rejected.19. The validity of the notice terminating the tenancy is not disputed. The plaintiff is ...

Apr 05 2004

Milkfood Ltd. Vs. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd.

  • Decided on : 05-Apr-2004

Court : Supreme

Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)624; 2004(1)ARBLR613(SC); [2004]121CompCas581(SC); (2004)3CompLJ16(SC); 2004(4)CTC479; 110(2004)DLT778(SC); 2004(75)DRJ512; JT2004(4)SC393; (2004)3MLJ87(SC)

... the purpose of applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act is of great significance. Even Section 43(1) of the 1996 Act provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to the arbitration as it applies to proceedings in court. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that for the purpose of the said section and the Limitation Act, 1963, an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced ... of the 1940 Act in interpreting Sub-Section (3) of Section 37 of the Act. (See Motilal Chamaria Vs. Lal Chand Dugar, AIR 1960 Calcutta 6) The commencement of an arbitration proceeding for the purpose of applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act is of great significance. Even Section 43(1) of the 1996 Act provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to ... of the expression - 'commencement of arbitration proceeding'. In terms of Section 37 of the 1940 Act, law of limitation will be applicable to arbitrators as it applies to proceedings in court. For the purpose of invoking the doctrine of lis pendens, section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and for other purposes presentation of plaint would be the date when a legal proceeding ... said section and the Limitation Act, 1963, an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the date referred to in section 21. Article 21 of the Model Law which was modelled on Article 3 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules had been adopted for the purpose of drafting Section 21 of the 1996 Act. Section 3 of the 1996 Act provides for as ...

Jul 11 2006

Ramesh B. Desai and Ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors.

  • Decided on : 11-Jul-2006

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR2006SC3672; 2006(5)ALD18(SC); 2007(1)AWC299(SC); 2006(5)BomCR574; [2006]132CompCas479(SC); (2006)5CompLJ203(SC); (2006)3GLR2495; JT2006(6)SC253; (2006)4MLJ174(SC); 2006(

... Limitation Act, 1908 is Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending Section 18 of the old Limitation Act read thus : -'OBJECTS AND REASONS'Clause 16: - Section 18 of the existing Act has been re- cast on the lines of Section 26 of the Limitation Act ... Act. There was no corresponding provision like Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 in Section 18 of the introduced for the first time as a result of the amendment. All the decisions cited by Mr. Chagla have been rendered on Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908. In view of the amendment incorporated in the Limitation Act, 1963 ... Limitation Act, 1963 is same as Clause (a) of Section 26 of the English Act. There was no corresponding provision like Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 in Section 18 of the introduced for the first time as a result of the amendment. All the decisions cited by Mr. Chagla have been rendered on Section 18 of Limitation Act ... Limitation Act, 1963 and specially the language in which Section 17 is cast now, they can have no application to the facts of the present case27. Mr. Soli Sorabjee has also submitted that the continuance of the name of Bipinbhai in the register of the Company was a continuing wrong and, therefore, the period of limitation ... a) of the Limitation Act which would govern the situation and not Section 17(1)(b) of the Limitation Act.25. The decisions cited by Mr. Chagla have been rendered on Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which reads ...

Jan 23 2002

Shaik Saidulu @ Saida vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam and Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Jan-2002

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR2002SC749; 2002(2)ALD7(SC); JT2002(1)SC247; 2002(1)SCALE296; (2002)3SCC130; [2002]1SCR403

... of an application was inserted in the Limitation Act, 1963 which defined it to include a petition. The object of the new definition is to provide a period of limitation for original applications, interlocutory applications and petitions under special law, to which the Act has been made applicable.In our ... Act and the provisions made therein for disputing the authenticity and the conduct of the election. To overcome the confusion regarding the definition between the application and the petition, a new definition of an application was inserted in the Limitation Act, 1963 which defined it to include a petition. The object of the new definition is to provide a period of limitation ... Limitation Act mentioned in s.29(2) of that Act."Again in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [1976 (2) SCR 260], this Court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to the election petitions as sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act specifically excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, in Limitation Act of 1963 ... Limitation Act were not applicable to the election petitions as sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act specifically excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, in Limitation Act of 1963, sub-section (2) of Section 29 was deleted and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) were made applicable to any special or local law prescribing different period of limitation ...

Nov 30 2006

Utha Moidu Haji Vs. Kuningarath Kunhabdulla and Ors.

  • Decided on : 30-Nov-2006

Court : Supreme

Reported in : 2006(14)SCALE156

... for the plaintiff on this aspect of non-application of the law of limitation provided the suit instituted by the plaintiff was within the period of limitation under Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963.For the reason stated above, the plaint claims are found barred by Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. Issue Nos. 1 and 3 ... law of limitation is applicable to legal proceedings instituted by litigants like plaintiff. I would have respectively appreciated with the arguments advanced by litigants like the learned Counsel for the plaintiff on this aspect of non-application of the law of limitation provided the suit instituted by the plaintiff was within the period of limitation under Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963.For ... could cone to learn about the execution of the sale deed only on 4.3.1983.8. The application of the provisions of the limitation Act is not in question. Section 6(1) and Section 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read as under:6. Legal disability.- (1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of ... arose for consideration before the learned Trial Judge was as to whether the suit was barred by limitation being issue No. 3 thereof.4. The learned Trial Judge opined that Article 60 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 being applicable, the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed an appeal thereagainst. The appellate Court was of the opinion that the ...

May 04 1961

Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.

  • Decided on : 04-May-1961

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1962SC361; [1962]2SCR762

... Limitation Act. 15. It appears that the provisions of s. 5 in the present Limitation Act are substantially the same as those in s. 5(b) and s. 5, paragraph 2, of the Limitation Acts of 1871 and 1877 respectively. Section 5A which was added to the Limitation Act, 1877 by the amending Act ... Limitation Act are substantially the same as those in s. 5(b) and s. 5, paragraph 2, of the Limitation Acts of 1871 and 1877 respectively. Section 5A which was added to the Limitation Act, 1877 by the amending Act VI of 1892 dealt with the topic covered by the explanation to s. 5 in the present Act ... Limitation Act the conditions expressly imposed by s. 14 have to be satisfied. It would, however, be unreasonable to suggest that the said conditions must to the same extent and in the same manner be taken into account in dealing with applications falling under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. 15. It appears that the provisions of s. 5 in the present Limitation Act ... Limitation Act it was necessary for the appellant to explain his conduct during the whole of the period prescribed for the appeal. 6. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of period in certain cases. It lays down, inter alia, that any appeal may be admitted after the period of limitation ...

Apr 24 2007

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. Vs. Revamma and Ors.

  • Decided on : 24-Apr-2007

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR2007SC1753; 2007(4)ALD47(SC); 2007(3)AWC2411(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN116; JT2007(6)SC86; 2007(4)KarLJ274; 2007(6)MhLj336; (2007)4MLJ912(SC); 2007(6)SCALE95; (2007)6SCC59

... for his/her share was governed, as regards immovable property, by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been materially re-enacted as Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and provides that the suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein ... Limitation Act20. The law in this behalf has undergone a change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit that he had title and possession of the land, whereas in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ... the applicant companies' claims under the Limitation Act 1980 ('the 1980 Act') which provides that a person cannot bring an action to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years of adverse possession by another. They also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925, which applied at the relevant ... a standard adverse possession case.. The fact of possession is important in more than one ways: firstly, due compliance on this count attracts limitation act and it also assists the court to unearth as the intention to dispossess. 11. At this juncture, it would be in the ... title to the fisheries by adverse possession in the portion of river Cossye. In the aforementioned situation, it was held that the Limitation Act is indulgent to the Crown in one respect only, namely, in requiring a much longer period of adverse possession than in the case ...

Aug 01 2008

T. Kaliamurthi and Anr. Vs. Five Gori Thaikal Wakf and Ors.

  • Decided on : 01-Aug-2008

Court : Supreme

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

... Act. Articles 94 and 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Articles 134A and 134B of the Limitation Act, 1908, while Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The corresponding old law was Section 66G of the Wakf Act, 1954 inserted by the Amendment Act 69 of 1984.22. Section 107 lays down that nothing contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 ... Limitation Act, 1908 inserted by Act I of 1929 and the residuary Articles 142 and 144 of the said Act. Articles 94 and 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Articles 134A and 134B of the Limitation Act, 1908, while Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The corresponding old law was Section 66G of the Wakf Act ... Act I of 1929 and the residuary Articles 142 and 144 of the said Act. Articles 94 and 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Articles 134A and 134B of the Limitation Act, 1908, while Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 correspond to Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The corresponding old law was Section 66G of the Wakf Act, 1954 inserted by the Amendment Act ...

Jul 31 1989

Mahabir Kishore and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

  • Decided on : 31-Jul-1989

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1990SC313; 1989(24)ECC199; 1989(43)ELT205(SC); [1990]184ITR548(SC); (1989)4SCC1; [1989]3SCR596; 1989(2)LC576(SC)

... 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963.27. It is thus a settled law that in suit for refund of money paid by mistake of law, Section 72 of the Contract Act is applicable and the period of limitation is three years as prescribed by Article 113 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of that Act will be applicable ... period of limitation prescribed under Article 113 of the Schedule read with Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963.27. It is thus a settled law that in suit for refund of money paid by mistake of law, Section 72 of the Contract Act is applicable and the period of limitation is three years as prescribed by Article 113 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and ... Limitation Act, 1908 were applicable and the period of limitation began to run from the dates the payments were made to the Government, held the suit to be barred by limitation and dismissed it. In appeal, 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 ... 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 law, a writ petition within the period of limitation prescribed, i.e., within 3 years' of the knowledge ...

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