Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Phrase:LIMITATION ACT, 1963 Court:Karnataka Page:10

Aug 20 1987

Ramappa alias Ramachandrappa Vs. Venkappa Reddy

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-1987

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1987KAR3172

... him within 6 years prior to the date of filing the suit. It is common ground that Article 120 of the old Limitation Act (the Act in short) applies to the suit. It reads as follows :'Description ofsuitPeriod ofLimitationTimefrom whichperiodbegins to run120.Suit for which no period ... 1963]2SCR499 , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the meaning of the words 'agreement' and 'compromise' as they appear under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC. The Supreme Court observed as follows :'Order XXXII, Rule 7, is one of the provisions designed to safeguard the interests of a minor during the pendency of a suit against hostile, negligent or collusive acts ... pleaded as follows regarding limitation :'The suit is in time as the suit is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and as the plaintiff for the first time became aware of the existence of the said decree and the grossly negligent acts of the guardian about ... bound to challenge the decree till it was sought to be executed against him. The period of limitation for executing the decree is 12 years under the present Limitation Act. In that case it would be open to the appellant to choose his own time to execute ... Limitation Act. Therefore, this is also of no assistance to Respondent-1.In Mathura Singh and Ors. -v.- Rama Rudra Prashad Singha and Ors., AIR 1936 Patna 231, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the suit to set aside the decree on the ground of gross negligence of the guardian is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act ...

Feb 10 1995

Charaka Mathu Gramodyog Sahakar Sangh Vs. Shantha Bai

  • Decided on : 10-Feb-1995

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1995KAR807; 1995(3)KarLJ126

... Act is a proceeding before a Civil Court just as the proceeding under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act and Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not attracted to a proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act because the Act specifically excludes the application of the Limitation Act ... Act which contains the non-obstinate clause. Even assuming that a proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act is a proceeding before a Civil Court just as the proceeding under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act and Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not attracted to a proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act because the Act ... Act, the Limitation Act was inherently inapplicable, the Supreme Court has observed thus:-'...... We are, however, unable to accept this argument.Recovery of possession is by a suit and there is no section in the scheme of the Limitation Act to indicate that Limitation Act was inherently inapplicable........'In Ganpat Ram's case (supra), referring to the applicability of Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act ...

Jun 09 2000

G.C. Nagaraju Vs. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Mysore Division, Mys ...

  • Decided on : 09-Jun-2000

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2000KAR5033; 2001(1)KarLJ71

... Court had wrongly decided the case on the point of limitation taking that the respondent 1 was entrusted with the contractual work on fixed price basis. Accordingly to him, the case of the appellant squarely covered under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and as such the period of limitation of three years set out therein begins to run ... '. (the above is quoted from the headnote in the decision) 32. I should add in this context that the provision in Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is verbatim and textually carried into Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and it is for that reason, in my wisdom, I placed reliance on the above decision in Dhapai's case, supra. 33. Therefore, in ... the Limitation Act, 1908 has the same meaning as it has under Section 73 of the Contract Act and that, where the recovery of compensation for breach of contract within the specific time for the purpose of limitation the suit falls within the scope of Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In paras 18, 22 and 23 thereof, the Court held as follows: '(C) Limitation Act (1908 ... case vis-a-vis the point of limitation. While discussing the point of limitation, the Trial Court held as hereunder: '7. Point No. 2:....... Admittedly and undisputedly, the suit or hand falls within the purview of Article 18 of the Limitation Act. It is true that in order to satisfy the requirement of Article 18 of the Limitation Act, certain necessary requirements are to be fulfiled ...

Jun 03 2003

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi and Allied Beedi Factories Workers Association ...

  • Decided on : 03-Jun-2003

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ26; (2003)IIILLJ861Kant

... exception set out to the first principle is applicable to whom the minimum wages are fixed under the Act for, under the Act, wages are fixed for the lowest strata of employees (See Killick Nixon Limited v. Killick and Allied Companies Employees' Union, : (1975)IILLJ53SC ). The rates of minimum wages fixed are ... wages can be interfered by the Court only where the fixation of minimum wages by the appropriate Government is ultra vires the Act.24. In Kamani Metals and Alloys Limited v. The Workmen, : (1967)IILLJ55SC , the Supreme Court held that.-'Broadly speaking the first principle is that there is a minimum wage ... of also the connotation of 'minimum rate of wages' in Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act XI of 1948)'. In U. Unichoyi's case, supra, the Supreme Court reiterated the ratio in Express Newspapers (Private) Limited's case, supra, and observed that hardship caused to an individual employer to meet the ... or small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity'.25. In the case of U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala, : (1961)ILLJ631SC , the Supreme Court stated the purpose of the Act thus:'. . . . what the Act purports to achieve is to prevent exploitation ... and from industry to industry. That is clear from the provisions of the Act itself and is inherent in the very concept of minimum wage.17. In Workmen v. The Management of Reptakos Brett and Company Limited, : (1992)ILLJ340SC , the Supreme Court reiterated the following five norms for the fixation ...

Nov 21 2003

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul Azeez

  • Decided on : 21-Nov-2003

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2004KAR2761

... a suit comes to end on expiry of period of limitation prescribed under a law relating to limitation, and thereby becomes barred by limitation, the right is not revived by a later limitation Act, even if it provides a larger period of limitation than that provided by the earlier Act. If such a right is to be revived or ... to the Labour Court.'12.2) The Supreme Court while dealing with Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Act, has repeatedly held that though the Act does not provide a period of limitation for raising a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) or (d), if an account of delay a dispute has become ... period of six months has to be rejected as barred by limitation. The Division Bench held:'If really, the Legislature intended the period of limitation provided in Section 10(4-A) of the Act as directory, then it would not have prescribed the period of limitation and it would have used the words 'at any time' ... application in the same manner as a dispute referred under Sub-section (1).'The appellant's contention regarding limitation is twofold: (i) The outer limit for filing an application Under Section 10(4-A) of the Act in regard to any order of termination passed prior to 7-4-1988 is 6-10-1988 and ... the words 'within six months'. Even the absence of words 'at any time' in Section 10(4-A) though found in Section 10(1) of the Act, also shows that the Legislature deliberately provided limitation period under Section 10(4-A) and as such, did not employ the words 'at any time' found in Section ...

Apr 16 2007

Sri M.K. Shekarappa S/o Karibasappa (since deceased by his LRs. Smt. P ...

  • Decided on : 16-Apr-2007

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007KAR2473; 2007(5)KarLJ93; 2007(4)KCCRSN227; 2007(4)AIRKarR330; AIR2007NOC1817

... Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 restricts the period of limitation. In a suit for redemption as per Article 61(a) the period of limitation is thirty years, in a case where the mortgagee has purported to transfer the property as an absolute owner, the period of limitation is twelve years because ... limitation is twelve years from the date when the transfer became known to the plaintiff.18. In the case of Abdur Rahim Jiwani v. Vithaldas Ramdos and Ors. : AIR1981Bom58 , the Bombay High Court has held that Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 restricts the period of limitation. In a suit for redemption as per Article 61(a) the period of limitation ... to have filed a suit within the limitation period of twelve years from the date of sale of the property and as such, both the courts below have rightly held that the case of the plaintiffs falls within Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not under Article 61(a ... within Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not under Article 61(a). It is also submitted that the respondents are also entitled to claim right by way of adverse possession, the plaintiff have no case at all and the suit is barred by limitation.10. Counsel representing both ... on 26.11.2001.4. Whether the appellant plaintiff filed the suit within the time as prescribed under Article 16(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 when admittedly the mortgaged property has been sold by the mortgagee before it could be redeemed and in the said circumstance, whether the ...

Jul 31 1987

State of Karnataka Vs. Y. Mohammed Kunhi and Anr.

  • Decided on : 31-Jul-1987

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1987KAR2739; 1987(2)KarLJ298

... Limitation Act, appears to have not-been specifically brought to the notice of Court in C.C Transport Co.'s case. The only question that was urged before their Lordships was regarding the applicability of Article 113 or Article 24 of the Limitation Act. The difference between Articles 22 and 24 of the Limitation Act ... of the timber to be cut and removed at seigniorage rates fixed in the Government Order No. AFD 124 FAD 63 dated 27th September 1963.2. The amount in deposit will either be transferred permanently to Government or refunded to the party depositing on the decision of the High ... Limitation Act. Before the referring Bench reliance had been placed on behalf of the State, on the decision in C.C. Transport Company's case in support of the contention that Article 24 and not Article 22 of the Limitation Act ('Act' for short) was attracted and that the Court below was in error in applying Article 22 of the Act ... applicability of Article 113 or Article 24 of the Limitation Act. The difference between Articles 22 and 24 of the Limitation Act was not high-lighted in that case.5. His Lordship thereafter referred to the content of Articles 22 and 24 of the Act, before adverting to the decisions of the Privy ... 24 of the Limitation Act and Art. 22 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case.The decision in C.C. Transport Co.'s case undoubtedly supports the contention urged for the State. But, with respect, we do not share that view. Article 22 of the Limitation Act, appears to ...

Nov 20 1995

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Fakirappa Yallappa Pujari

  • Decided on : 20-Nov-1995

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1996KAR951; 1996(1)KarLJ265

... the Act has been moved by the respondent within the period of 3 years, as provided under Article 137 to the Limitation Act, 1963, from the date of expiry of period of 90 days during which the Deputy Commissioner is required to pass orders on the application under Section 18(1) of the Act. As ... Limitation Act, 1963, from the date of expiry of period of 90 days during which the Deputy Commissioner is required to pass orders on the application under Section 18(1) of the Act. As regards the facts of the case, the dispute between the parties is and has been with regard to the application under Section 18(1) of the Act ... 1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring the matter to the Civil Court has been made after the expiry of the period of limitation and, as the application under Section 18(1) of the Act has been made beyond the period of limitation, the Civil Court should not ... made after the expiry of the period of limitation and, as the application under Section 18(1) of the Act has been made beyond the period of limitation, the Civil Court should not have passed the impugned order under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that ... Act was given on 8.1.1993, i.e., after almost 24 years. The period of limitation for filing the application under Section 18(1) of the Act is 90 days and the starting point for computing the period of limitation, as per the Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, ...

Jun 13 1997

K. Devadas Shetty Vs. Dr. J.R. Pais

  • Decided on : 13-Jun-1997

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1998CriLJ290; ILR1997KAR2883

... of the Limitation Act, the Limitation Act is made applicable even in regard to the complaint. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to refer to S. 29 of the Limitation Act, which reads :'(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the ... of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that notwithstanding S. 5 does not refer to the complaint, in view of S. 29(3) of the Limitation Act, the Limitation Act is made applicable even in regard to the complaint. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to refer to S. 29 of the Limitation Act, which reads :'(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect ... is a petn. which term comes within the definition 'application' as used in S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act and therefore, S. 5 of the Limitation Act applies. Delay in making complaint beyond the period of limitation prescribed in S. 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be condoned and cognizance can be taken since.'This decision also was considered by the Kerala ... C. The Act also refers to the complaint to be filed within one month. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint does not come within the purview of S. 5 of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that notwithstanding S. 5 does not refer to the complaint, in view of S. 29(3) of the Limitation Act, the Limitation Act is ...

Jun 20 1974

Bhaskar Krishnaji Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

  • Decided on : 20-Jun-1974

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1975Kant55; 1974(2)KarLJ509

... the holder under the un-amended Act within the ceiling limit fixed thereby could be acquired without payment of compensation according to the market value, but once ceiling limit was changed by the amended Act the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) must be held to refer only to the new ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act. The ceiling limit originally fixed ceased to exist ... once ceiling limit was changed by the amended Act the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) must be held to refer only to the new ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act. The ceiling limit originally fixed ceased to exist for future the moment it was replaced by the amended Act. The prohibition contained in the second proviso operates only within the ceiling limit fixed under ... refer only to the new ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act. The ceiling limit originally fixed ceased to exist for future the moment it was replaced by the amended Act. The prohibition contained in the second proviso operates only within the ceiling limit fixed under the existing law at the given time. It is true that the new ceiling limit was fixed contemporaneously with the ... for compensation at a rate not less than the market value of such land. According to the argument when the amended Act reduced the ceiling limit and required surrender of the land held in excess of the limit fixed by the amended Act, without payment of compensation at market value, it violated the constitutional inhibition contained in the second proviso to Article 31- ...

Get Latest cases on this phrase via RSS

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