Skip to content


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

Apr 05 1968

Town Municipal Council (By Chief Officer), Nippani Vs. Ramachandra Dat ...

  • Decided on : 05-Apr-1968

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (1969)ILLJ645Kant; (1968)2MysLJ407

... Act is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed for a suit. But that does not mean that the period which could be condoned in the exercise of the plenary power conferred by proviso (2) to S. 20(2) of the Act could be restricted on the basis of the period of limitation for a suit prescribed by the Limitation Act. While Art. 102 of the Limitation Act ... . 20(2) of the Act could be restricted on the basis of the period of limitation for a suit prescribed by the Limitation Act. While Art. 102 of the Limitation Act to which Sri Narasimhamurthi made an appeal prescribes only a period of limitation, we are concerned with ... limitation for a suit prescribed by the Limitation Act. While Art. 102 of the Limitation Act to which Sri Narasimhamurthi made an appeal prescribes only a period of limitation, we are concerned with the question as to what is the period which could be condoned when there is a delay in the presentation of a claim under the Minimum wages Act ... Limitation Act, 1908, which does be more than to prescribe period of limitation for a suit. 8. It is true that the period of limitation within which a claim could be made for the recovery of wages under the Minimum Wages Act is shorter than the period of limitation ... opinion, the power created by the Minimum Wages Act for the condonation of delay is not controlled by the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act for a suit, and the authority functioning under the Minimum Wages Act has in its discretion plenary power to ...

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- ...

Mar 01 2013

Vishwaraj, Bangalore and Others Vs. B.M. Byrappa, Bangalore and Others

  • Decided on : 01-Mar-2013

Court : Karnataka

... In the said decision, at paragraph 5 of the judgment, the court observed thus: Before we deal with the question as to which Article of the Limitation Act applies to a case like the present, it is useful to examine the position and the rights of persons like the plaintiffs who purchase ... has been held as under: 14. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the factual scenario needs to be noted. On 5.6.1963 the original. plaintiff-Sheshagiri and Vasudeva Murthy who was his uncle and the father-in-law of the defendant/appellant purchased the property jointly. ... property then, such an acquisition although as a limited owner or an acquisition of property in a limited sense will confer absolute ownership on her, on and from the day the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 coming into force or in other words the limited right of Hindu female would blossom into full- ... to her antecedent right or interest in the property then such acquisition though as a limited owner or the acquisition in a limited sense will get blossomed into absolute ownership on and from the day Act coming into force. If however acquisition of the property cannot be correlated to any antecedent ... the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. The Act is a codifying enactment, and has made far reaching changes in the structure of the Hindu law of inheritance, and succession. The Act confers upon Hindu females full rights of inheritance, and sweeps away the traditional limitations on her powers of dispositions which ...

Sep 07 1992

Balamma Vs. Srinivas

  • Decided on : 07-Sep-1992

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : II(1993)DMC133; ILR1993KAR1061

... provisions of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act cannot be stretched to the extent of holding that the same would apply even in respect of filing of an appeal. I have also checked up as to whether the respondents could have recourse to provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. Ordinarily, Section 6 of the Limitation Act which relates to the period, during disability ... will have to be excluded in the light of the language reflected in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the respondents' Counsel. Section 14 of the Limitation Act reads as under:'(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil ... .Under these circumstances, I am of the view that even Section 6 ofthe Limitation Act can be availed of to save the Limitation prescribedfor preferring the Appeal in a given case. The only provision thereforewhich can be availed of by the respondents is the provisions reflectedin Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the provisions of Order 41, Rule22 itself. Under these circumstances, the only ... time. In this connection, an application at I.A.2 is filed on behalf of the respondents purporting to be one under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, praying for condoning the delay in preferring the Cross-Objections. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit. The pith and substance of the affidavit is that the instant respondents ...

Jun 03 1999

M. Krishnappa Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electric ...

  • Decided on : 03-Jun-1999

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ558

... The Court below was wrong in relying on Article 15 of the Limitation Act. The proper Article to be on which reliance could be placed by Sri N.K. Gupta is Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which is contained in Part III of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 58 of the Limitation Act reads as under:'To obtain any other declaration three years when the ... the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 58 of the Limitation Act reads as under:'To obtain any other declaration three years when the right to sue first accrues'.10. Mr. N.K. Gupta made reference to Article 113. But in view of Article 58, there is no necessity to make reference to that Article. Article 113 is no doubt a residuary Article which provides limitation ... injunction. So the application for amendment being belated and beyond limitation should not be permitted. As regards the applicability of Article 15 of the Limitation Act, in my opinion the learned Counsel was mistaken on relying on it as the ground of objection of Limitation Act. Article 15 of the Limitation Act, prescribes period of limitation for suit for recovery of the price of goods sold ... of the Limitation Act, while rejecting the application for amendment made bythe plaintiff-revision petitioner. It is not the plaintiff's claim or the suit for realisation of that amount. The plaintiff is claiming the relief that the demand made is illegal, null and void. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that Article 15 of the Limitation Act, applies ...

Sep 28 2005

M. Mangilal Vs. M.S. Ramakrishna Gupta and Brothers and Ors.

  • Decided on : 28-Sep-2005

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2006Kant250; ILR2006KAR761; 2006(3)KarLJ286

... Limitation Act of 1963 within three years from the date of issuance of notice, the suit ought to have been filed and since the suit was filed on 19.2.82 the same was barred by time. However, it is the case of the plaintiff even before the Lower Appellate Court that it is not Article 55 or 47 of the Limitation Act ... limitation starts and not from the date of issuance of notice and accordingly, submitted that it is Article 113 of the Limitation Act which applies to the rase on hand and not Article 55 of the Limitation Act.6. Per-contra, on the previous occasion, the Learned Counsel for the respondents had submitted that Article 55 of the Limitation Act ... be returned within a particular time. In the instant case it is not the Article 55 of the Limitation Act, but it is Article 113 of the Limitation Act which applies to the case.10. For the foregoing reasons, while answering the substantial questions of law ... plaintiff even before the Lower Appellate Court that it is not Article 55 or 47 of the Limitation Act, but it is Article 113 of the Limitation Act which applies to the case on hand and also in this regard the learned Counsel for the ... Limitation Act.6. Per-contra, on the previous occasion, the Learned Counsel for the respondents had submitted that Article 55 of the Limitation Act applies to this case which refers to compensation for breach of contract and when it is within three years form the date of the agreement.7. The Trial Court has noted that the suit is not barred by limitation ...

Jul 26 1985

State Bank of India Vs. Hegde and Golay Limited

  • Decided on : 26-Jul-1985

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1987KAR2364

... . Hegde and endorsed by the payees to you, I/we acknowledge for the purpose of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 and any like limitation law in order to preclude any question of limitation law that I am/we are liable to you for payment of the said promissory note with interest in respect of ... 6, the revival letter Form-I dated 5-12-1978 signed by Sri & Smt Hegde on behalf of HGL for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with reference to this loan, Ex.P.8, a similar letter in Form-II of the same date signed by Sri & Smt Hegde as guarantors and Ex ... due to himself for the purpose of Section 23(4) of the Limitation Act, such an acknowledgment would be fully effective if sanctioned by every member of the Company, for in such circumstances the Directors could not be said to have been acting in breach of their fiduciary duty.15.3 In Re Compania De ... duly authorised to borrow and also passed by the general meeting would amount to an acknowledgment of liability for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, Bachawat, J., observed as follows :'There was necessarily a time lag between the date of the signing of the Balance Sheet and the end of the ... need it amount to a promise to pay the debt An admission of indebtedness in a Balance-sheet is therefore a sufficient acknowledgment under Section 19 Limitation Act.'15.6 In Babulal Rukmanand v. Official Liquidator, Bharatpur Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Shinghal, J., as he then was, dissenting from the view taken by the ...

Aug 01 1975

R.T. Chinnavenkatesh Vs. The Senior Regional Transport Officer and Lic ...

  • Decided on : 01-Aug-1975

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1976Kant69; 1975(2)KarLJ385

... taxing statute. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not say that the provisions of the Limitation Act wouldbe applicable to appeals filed under a taxing statute. In the above situation it is not possible to apply by analogy the principles underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals filed under the KarnatakaVehicles Taxation Act.5. The true principle governing the question ... Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals in question.3. The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the Rules framed there under do not expressly provide that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the appeals filed under Section 15. Sri R. J. Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the principle underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act ... (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. I find it difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.4. The Deputy Transport Commissioner is not a Court. The appeals in question arose under a taxing statute. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not say that the provisions of the Limitation Act wouldbe applicable to appeals filed ... Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the appeals filed under Section 15. Sri R. J. Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the principle underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been applied by the Deputy Transport Commissioner by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. I find it difficult ...

Jan 31 1985

Mahalinga Shetty Vs. Krishnaraj

  • Decided on : 31-Jan-1985

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1985KAR2194

... 's case. The part that the Legislature played was by enacting, the Limitation Act of 1877. There was earlier Limitation Act of 1859. It isundisputed that as per the provisions of the Limitation Act of 1877 period for redemption of a mortgage was fixed as 60 years2. ... and decree dated 31-1-1975 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Udupi, South Kanara, in Appeal Suit No. 7 of 1963 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 10-10-1962 passed by the Principal District Munsiff, Karkala, in O.S. No. 4 of ... of the Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable. The period of limitation fixed by this Act for redemption of mortgage is 60 years from the date on which the right accrues to the mortgagor. That period was the same as was found fixed in the Limitation Act, 1887. ... Limitation Act of 1877. In the decision in Beepathumavs.Shankaranarayana it is laid down that the law of limitation being a procedural law, the provisions existing on the date of the suit apply to it. Sri B. P. Holla argued that the suit having been filed on 2-1-1959, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable. The period of limitation ... Act, would probably settle the law, without injustice to any party.'It is to be noted that no occasion appears to have arisen for Their Lordships of the Privy Council to express any opinion which they had abstained from expressing while deciding Thumbuswamy's case. The part that the Legislature played was by enacting, the Limitation Act of 1877. There was earlier Limitation Act ...

Aug 12 1981

Narayan Shivaram Kulkarni Vs. State of Karnataka

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-1981

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1986KAR37

... Limitation Act, 1908 or Article 104 of the Limitation Act of 1963. The old Article 131 prescribed the period of limitation for filing suit for establishing a periodically recurring right. The period of limitation prescribed was three years from the time when the enjoyment of that right was first refused. The residuary Article 120 of the 1908 Act prescribed the limitation of six years for declaratory suits and the limitation ... Limitation Act which was applicable was either Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or Article 104 of the Limitation Act of 1963. The old Article 131 prescribed the period of limitation for filing suit for establishing a periodically recurring right. The period of limitation prescribed was three years from the time when the enjoyment of that right was first refused. The residuary Article 120 of the 1908 Act ... the period of limitation had expired. In the relevant portion of the order of the Munsiff set out earlier there is no reference to any of the Articles, either of the 1908 Act or of the 1963 Act, but nevertheless he held that the suit was not barred by limitation.12. Section 3 of the Limitation Act reads as ... Act or of the 1963 Act, but nevertheless he held that the suit was not barred by limitation.12. Section 3 of the Limitation Act reads as follows :'3(1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation ...

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