Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: limitation act 1963 Court: karnataka Page 10 of about 21,754 results (0.030 seconds)

Sep 21 2004 (HC)

Noel F.C. Pinto Vs. Mrs. Magdelien Mascarenhas (Deceased) by L.Rs and ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ585

..... landlord, numbered as i.a. no. i of 1989 under order 22, rule 9 of the cpccpccpc, i.a. no. ii of 1989 under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963, i.a. no. iii of 1989 under order 22, rule 4 of the cpccpccpc, i.a. no. iv of 1989 under section 5 of the ..... has actually abated. a cause may be shown by the party asking for the setting aside of the abatement as to why the application was not made earlier; section 5, limitation act, applies to such an application. if on the abatement of a suit, the court ceases to have jurisdiction, how is it possible for it to entertain an application for ..... defendant. order 22, rule 9 states the effect of abatement. order 22, rule 9(3) of the cpccpccpc, states that the provisions of section 5 of the indian limitation act, 1877, shall apply to the applications made under rule 9(2) of order 22. it is clear from the above provisions that, on the abatement of a suit, the ..... were not brought on record. since the petition is dismissed as abated, necessary applications under order 22, rule 9 of the cpccpccpc, as also section 5 of the limitation act and an application under order 22, rule 4 have been filed. it is argued that the question of dismissal of an appeal does not arise if the l.rs ..... limitation act and a miscellaneous case no. 22 of 1989 under rule 10 of the karnataka land reforms (appellate authority) rules, 1986 read with section 151 of the cpccpccpc. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2006 (HC)

Karnataka Leasing and Commercial Corpn. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. N.R. ...

Court : Karnataka

..... the hon'ble supreme court, and it is observed by the full bench of this court as follows: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 applicable to the nature of the claims. whether the claim is enforceable or not is to be determined with reference ..... to the relevant article in the limitation act, as applicable to the nature of the claim and not with reference to the form by which ..... or by or through whom it is enforced. in a given case, if the claim does not fall under any one of the relevant articles in the schedule to the limitation act, the residuary article 137 will be applicable. the expression when the right to apply accrues has to be decided with reference to the right of the company and the nature ..... the application filed is barred by time as the promissory note is dated 20-7-1989. it is averred in the objections statement that the period of limitation prescribed under article 19 of the limitation act for filing the claim application is three years and the said period commences from the date of execution of the promissory note i.e., 20-7-1989 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2009 (HC)

B.C. Reddy and ors. Vs. the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Socie ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2009(2)KarLJ561

..... to 5 herein had filed the appeal no. 588 of 1999 on the file of the karnataka appellate tribunal at bangalore along with the application under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 for condoning the delay and assailed the order passed by first respondent dated 27th july, 1999 passed on application filed under section 5 of the ..... limitation act in dispute no. d.d.s./d.2/1106/1997-98 on the file of the karnataka appellate tribunal at bangalore. the said appeal had come up for consideration before ..... ramesh govind kulkarni and ors. v. karnataka appellate tribunal bangalore and ors. : ilr1995kar2063 when it is held that, even if an appeal is ex facie found to be barred by limitation, no formal application necessary for condonation of delay - if separate application need, reasonable opportunity to be given to appellant for filing the same. therefore, the tribunal has opined that, in ..... petitioners before the tribunal. the petitioners have raised the specific ground that as per section 119 of the karnataka co-operative societies act, 1959, it is applicable to only filing of any appeal or application for revision under this act and not for the original dispute and since the respondents had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of one year and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2001 (HC)

The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. K.N. Vasude ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2002KAR1073; 2002(2)KarLJ331

..... almost 11 years of the termination of the contract, the respondent-contractor filed a representation before the chief minister. under article 18 of the first schedule to the limitation act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for the price of the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment, is three years from ..... the date the work is done. section 18 of the limitation act was admittedly not available to the respondent-contractor for extension of the period of limitation since the corporation had not acknowledged the liability within the prescribed period for a suit for the purpose. further, the government had no ..... made in this behalf, the following provisions shall apply with respect to the making of contract for any of the purposes of this act, namely.- (a)xxxxx (a) xxxxx (c) any contract involving any expenditure exceeding such limits as may be specified in the rules shall not be made by the commissioner unless the requirement regarding the procedure to be followed has ..... authority under the act either to acknowledge any liability on behalf of the corporation nor it could have forced the corporation to concede to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2005 (HC)

Totappa Rachappa Ingalahalli Vs. Gangadharayya Neelakanthayya Sirahatt ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2005Kant248; 2005(3)KarLJ124

..... hereinafter referred to as the 'act') besides certain authorities. on the other hand, it was submitted for judgment-debtors 5 and 6 that since r.a. no. 36 of ..... of limitation of 12 years. it was submitted that even if there was partial stay or injunction against the execution of a decree, that applied to the entire decree and as such, said period could be excluded. in that connection, reliance was placed on section 15(1) and article 136 of the limitation act, 1963 ( ..... of sale in respect of land sy. no. 127/1 measuring 5 acres agricultural land. so, the period of limitation to execute it is 12 years as provided in article 136 of the act 1963 and the time from which that period began to run was, when it became enforceable. 7. according to the decree ..... read the section' it was also held further as under: '37. we, therefore, answer the question thus: (1) 'execution' in section 15 of the limitation act embraces all the appropriate means by which a decree is enforced. it includes all processes and proceedings in aid of or supplemental to execution. (2) stay of ..... restriction on the decree-holder's right to enforce it as best as he can. the effect of section 15 of the limitation act is to arrest the running of limitation when its execution remained stayed by an injunction or order and thus extend the life of the decree beyond the prescribed time. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1985 (HC)

T.S. Kotagi Vs. Tahsildar, Gadag and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1985Kant265

..... words, he steps into the shoes of pledgee. these being the rights and remedies of pledgee, question is what is the period of limitation to bring these actions. art. 120 of the old act i.e. art. 113 of the limitation act (1963) governs such suits and the period, for both types of suits to be brought by pledgee is six years, from the date ..... absolute ownership at law and his equitable title cannot exceed what is specifically granted by law.13. suit for recovery of pledged articles is governed by art. 70 of the limitation act, which prescribes a period of three years from the 'date of refusal after demand'. this right of the 'pledge' to recover his articles, by a separate suit, is an incident ..... a general balance, and he gets possession of the goods of his debtor, he may hold them until his whole demand is satisfied notwithstanding that it is barred by the limitation act.'11. in bombay dyeing and . v. state of bombay : (1958)illj778sc , their lordships held thus :' ........and if the law requires that a debtor should get a discharge before he can ..... the contentions of mr. joshi. it becomes necessary to find out rights and remedies, available to the pledge and pledgee under ss. 172 to 177 of the contract act and the relevant provisions of limitation act.8. s. 172. defines the word 'pledge' and pawner (otherwise called as pledge) and pawnee (otherwise called as pledgee). under s. 173, the pledgee or pawnee has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1984 (HC)

Mohammed Sab Wallad Gafar Sab Vs. Abdul Gani Wallad Mohammed Hayath an ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1985Kant177

..... applicability of the public wakfs (extension of limitation) act, 1959. however, since the learned counsel on both sides have addressed arguments on this ..... procedural law and the provisions existing on the date of a suit apply to it and therefore, art. 65 of the limitation act, 1963 is applicable, under which if a suit is brought on the basis of title and if the plaintiff proves his title, it ..... fact that defendant-1 is inconsistent in respect of the commencement of the period of limitation for the purpose of claiming adverse possession, he has failed to discharge the burden in accordance with art. 65 of the limitation act. 1963.18. in the view i have taken it appears to be unnecessary to consider the ..... where a person entitled to institute a suit of the description referred to in art. 142 or art. 144 of the first schedule to the indian limitation act, 1908, for possession of any immovable property forming part of a public wakf or any interest therein has been dispossessed, or has discontinued the possession, ..... decide whether the suit properties are the trust properties. he has also pleaded that the suit is not in time and the public wakfs (extension of limitation) act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. in the alternative, he claims title to the suit properties by adverse possession. on these .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 1999 (HC)

N.K. Prakash Gupta Vs. Smt. Rukmaniyamma and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1999KAR3043; 1999(6)KarLJ558

..... - sections 2(2), 37, 38 and 115 - order 21, rules 97, 98, 101 and 103;karnataka small causes courts act, 1964 - sections 3, 18 and 35-a;constitution of india - articles 136 and 226;limitation act, 1963 - section 14cases referred:shankar ramchandra abhyankar v. krishnaji dattatraya bapat, air 1970 sc 1, (1970) 1 scr 322, (1969 ..... , supra, in this regard is not well founded. in ghasi ram's case, supra, the hon'ble supreme court was interpreting section 14 of the limitation act. the question that came up before the court was 'whether time spent on prosecuting a revision petition before the high court, against the orders of a ..... court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the court below. section 115 of the code of civil procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the high court as a superior court. ..... of the cpccpccpc as it stood prior to amendment should be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing a suit under order 21, rule 103 (prior to amendment of cpccpccpc amendment act of 1976). it was held by the court while interpreting the word 'conclusive' in order 21, ..... has been defined under section 3(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the rent act as follows:'section 3(d)(i), (ii) and (iii): section 3(d) 'court' means:(i) in respect of the area comprised within the limits of the city of bangalore, as the courts of small causes;(ii) in such other areas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2010 (HC)

Smt. Nagarathnamma Wife of Vadiraja and Vs. Smt. Halamma @ Sanna Halam ...

Court : Karnataka

..... 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 position has undergone a complete change insofar as the onus is concerned; once a party proves his title, the onus of proof shifts to the ..... on a revision petition to the high court that order of the trial court was set aside relying on the case of modi spinning and weaving mills co. limited v. lodha ram and co. : (1976) 4 scc 320. the high court held that allowing such an amendment would totally displace the case of the ..... (see: state of rajasthan v. harpool singh : (2000) 5 scc 652). unless and until there is adverse animus, mere possession over the statutory period of limitation is not sufficient for the success of a plea of adverse possession (see: roop singh v. ram singh air 2000 sc 1485). unless the plea of adverse ..... the karnataka wakf board and another claiming that the suit property belonged to the state and that it was erroneously notified as wakf property under the wakf act. in the alternative, it was claimed the state had perfected its title by adverse possession. the suit was decreed in favour of the state.the ..... actually decided from the judgment itself. but judgements in personam not inter parties are not at all admissible in evidence (see: section 41 - the indian evidence act, 1872, sarkar's law of evidence 16th edition volume 1 pages 932 and 933 and state of bihar v. shri radhakrishna singh : air 1983 sc 684). .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2009 (HC)

Sri H.L. Srinivasa Gupta S/O. M. Lakshmipathi Setty, Vs. Sri H.L. Srid ...

Court : Karnataka

..... was no exclusion of the plaintiff from the joint family property.there is no warrant to consider whether the case would be covered under the general article 65 of the limitation act, 1963. a distinction must be made between adverse possession of a co-owner of an estate claiming to hold it in severally and that of a member of a joint family ..... of ouster and adverse possession and in such cases article 65 apply.this is an erroneous proposition for reasons already stated.8. under article 110 of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963, a co-parcener ought to have been excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family properly to his knowledge. this being an admitted circumstance, it cannot be said that there ..... , it is plain that the appellant had been excluded from the family home and according to him, denied of his share - hence limitation would run iron! the year 1970 and the suit is barred under article 110 of the limitation act, 1963.- p. lakshmi reddy v. l. lakshmi reddy : [1957]1scr195 - syed shah gulam ghause mohiuddin and ors. v. syed shah ahmad mohiuddin : [1971 ..... . 1 from the joint family in the year 1970 itself. hence the suit having been filed, seeking partition and separate possession in the year 1986 was clearly barred by limitation, as it would be squarely covered under article 110 of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963. the contention that the case would be one covered under article 65 of the schedule to the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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