Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the east punjab extension of limitation act 1947 Page 7 of about 762 results (0.069 seconds)

Nov 13 2019 (SC)

Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... would now refer to an earlier decision of this court in devi das gopal krishnan & ors v. state of punjab & ors33 wherein k. subba rao, cj.speaking for the court had struck down section 5 of the east punjab general sales tax act, 1948 which had empowered the state government to fix rate of tax to such rate as it deemed fit, as ..... . 72 part f88the basic postulate of our constitution is that every authority is subservient to constitutional supremacy. no authority can assume to itself the ultimate power to decide the limits of its own constitutional mandate. judicial review is intended to ensure that every constitutional authority keeps within the bounds of its constitutional functions and authority. in holding a constitutional ..... . section 158 has been reproduced below as an example of such sections which in addition to the elements of section 173 also effect amalgamations: 158. amendment of act 14 of 1947. in the industrial disputes act, 1947, (a) in section 7a, after sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely: (1a) the industrial tribunal constituted by the central ..... manner that would ensure their reappointment. the court noted that since the ntt had been vested with jurisdiction that earlier vested in the high courts, all matters of appointment and extension of tenure must be shielded from the executive. the court noted that upon the declaration of numerous provisions as unconstitutional, the remaining provisions were rendered ?otiose and worthless . .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1994 (HC)

Vee Kay Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Punjab Through Its Chief Secre ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1994)107PLR234

..... . learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has firstly drawn our attention to the notification issued under section 5(1) of the punjab municipal act wherein it was proposed to extend the present boundary limit of municipality of ahmedgarh, vide this notification, the inhabitants of municipality of the local area were asked to file objections, if any, to the ..... objections as well as pleas taken in both the written statements are almost identical. objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition, it has been stated-that the extension of the municipal limits is in exercise of a function which partakes the character of sovereign functions and it was not incumbent upon the respondents to hear the petitioner before extending the municipal ..... secretary to government punjab, local government department, within six weeks of the publication of this notification. this notification gives the description of boundaries municipal limit of ahmedgarh intended to be extended. it starts from north east corner of khasra no. 229 of village jagera and thereafter towards west along the northern ..... few khasra nos. and then includes within its ambit khasra no. 523 onwards (as detailed in notification) upto khasra number 598 of village jandali khurd; from khasra number 598 towards east along the southern boundaries of khasra no. 599, 601, 645, 470, 471, 472, 478, 438, 439,433, 427, 416, 102, 104, 94, 90, 123, 124-42-41-40, 33, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2018 (HC)

Tops Security Limited & Ors vs.punjab National Bank (International) L ...

Court : Delhi

..... new delhi date of decision:21. t march, 2018 cs(comm) 517/2017, ia no.8950/2017 tops security limited & ors ..... plaintiffs through: mr. salar m khan & mr. abhigyan choudhary, advs. versus punjab national bank (international) limited & ors. .... defendants through: mr. jagdeep kishore, adv. for d-1. ms. shruti dhingra, adv. for ..... the said clauses reproduced hereinabove, only non-exclusive? jurisdiction as distinct from exclusive? jurisdiction was conferred on the courts at new delhi, without limiting the rights of the defendant no.1 to take proceedings in any other court of competent jurisdiction. invocation of the jurisdiction of the london court ..... under / in relation to this guarantee shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at new delhi. this shall not however limit the rights of the bank to take proceedings in any other court of competent jurisdiction. d. the following clause in the amendment agreement to ..... appeared on 27th september, 2017 and though were granted four weeks? time to file written statement, have neither filed any written statement nor sought extension of time for filing thereof and their right to file written statement was closed on 12th january, 2018.6. the defendant no.1 has ..... 1 and 2 and defendants no.2 to 4 are group companies; (iv) that the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are incorporated under the companies act, 1956 and having their registered office at mumbai; (v) that the plaintiff no.3 is a majority shareholder and promoter of plaintiff no.1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1962 (HC)

Kesharibhai Jesingbhai Vs. Bai Lilavati and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1963Guj119; (1963)GLR59

..... court. the appellant accordingly presented the memorandum of appeal to the chief court but since the ninety days allowed had expired, the appellant presented an application for extension of time under section 5 of the limitation act. on this application the question arose whether the appellant was entitled to be relieved against the delay in filing the appeal in the chief court. this ..... good faith i. e., with due care and attention in giving the mistaken advice, the litigant acting on the mistaken advice cannot obtain relief under section 5 of the limitation act. it must also he mentioned that this decision of the punjab high court has not discussed the question on first principle nor has it considered the decision of the privy council in 21 ..... and attention in giving the mistaken advice, the analogy of section 14 of the limitation act cannot be invoked so as to make out sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the limitation act. it is therefore apparent that no support could really be derived by the punjab high court from this decision of the privy council for taking the view that unless ..... 1918 pc 135) which in my view considerably supports the contention urged on behalf of the appellant. i must, therefore, with the greatest respect to the learned judges of the punjab high court decline to follow this decision.16. but before i part with this point, i must refer to one other decision relied on by the learned advocate general and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 1953 (HC)

Devi Das Vs. Bushahr Sangh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1953HP110

..... terms :'as to the applicability of section 14 of the limitation act, it seems to me that there is a clear distinction between exclusion of the time during which another civil proceeding has been duly prosecuted within the meaning of that section and an extension of time for good cause shown under section 5. if ..... to a party to have a certain period of time excluded from the computation of the period of limitation if the requirements of the section are satisfied.'8. there is a full bench decision of the punjab high court which fully supports the view that i have taken of the matter. it is an old ..... would respectfully differ from that opinion in view of what i have held above on the basis of '183 pun re 1888 (fb) (k)', decision of the punjab high court and 'air 1917 pc 156 (n)' ruling.13. another case apparently holding the opposite view is that of the calcutta high court reported as--'kamiruddin ..... could not have been consistently with the view laid down in the case.9. the privy council decision in which the above full bench view of the punjab high court was approved is reported as 'brii indar singh v. kanshi ram', air 1917 pc 156 (n). that was a case where the appeal ..... from in any decision of countervailing weight. on thecontrary, it was approved, as i shall presently show, in a subsequent privy council decision. that ruling of the punjab high court stands reported as --'karm bakhsh v. daulat ram', 183 pun re 1888 (fb) (k). that was a case where the following question was referred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2011 (HC)

Nab Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors

Court : Rajasthan

..... relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. he must approach the court within the prescribed period of limitation. if the statutory time limit expires the court cannot give the declaration sought for. 12. for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that no case for ..... order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, ajmer (misc. application no.85/2007), whereby the application filed by the prosecution for extension of time to file challan was allowed. the said revision petition came to be dismissed on 27.05.2011. subsequent to the passing of the order by ..... sessions, ajmer but was unsuccessful. this view of our is supported by the principles laid down by the hon'ble suprme court in the case of state of punjab & others versus gurdev singh, ashok kumar; air 1991 supreme court 2219. the hon'ble supreme court has observed in paras 6, 7 and 8, which reads ..... 19.04.2011 was without jurisdiction and a nullity because it was the special court alone, under the act of 2008, which is empowered to pass such an order. accordingly, he has submitted that the order of extension of time, passed by the learned magistrate, for filing of challan within 180 days is illegal and ..... de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be void or nullity by a competent body or court. in smith v. east elloe rural district council, (1956) ac 736 at p. 769 lord redcliffe observed. an order even if not made in good faith is still an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2014 (HC)

Vijay Bansal Advocate Vs. the State of Haryana and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... 6169-2010 -3- phirni of the village fixed at the time of consolidation under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act 1948. insofar as the state of punjab is concerned, the issue of extension of abadi deh of villages has received the attention of gmada in the periphery area of ..... the requirement does not exist. the stand of the u.t of chandigarh is that there should be no extension of lal dora as the administration has limited land and the extension in lal dora would be counter-productive and is an endeavour only to obtain plotting of agricultural land by ..... in haphazard manner and illegal constructions are stated to have taken place which is against the very spirit of extension of lal dora and the objectives and reasons of the periphery act. thus, where residential chand parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of ..... to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp-6169-2010 -5- additional advocate general, haryana and the affidavits already on record of state of punjab and u.t.of chandigarh. the petition accordingly stands disposed of. ( sanjay kishan kaul ) chief justice2403.2014 ( arun palli) parkash* judge chand ..... kaul, chief justice hon ble mr.justice arun palli present: mr.ravi sharma, advocate for the petitioner mr.harsimran s. sethi, addl. advocate general, punjab mr.ajay gupta, addl. advocate general, haryana mr.shikhar verma, advocate for u.t.of chandigarh .sanjay kishan kaul, chief justice: (oral) the present .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1967 (SC)

Johrimal Vs. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1967SC1568; (1967)69PLR824; [1967]3SCR286

..... to an alteration of the consolidation scheme and the state government had power, under s. 42 of the act as amendment by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (second amendment and validation) act (punjab act 27 of 1960), to make any change in the consolidation scheme subject to the requirements of that section ..... confers a power on the consolidation officer to reserve the land of the proprietors for any common purpose including the extension of the village abadi and there is no express limitation in the language of the section to the effect that the land to be taken from the proprietors and other ..... right-holders in accordance with their ratable share. it was contended by the respondents that no limitation should be placed on the plain language of the section. 17. in our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is ..... it was contended that s. 18(c) gives a wide power to the consolidation officer to reserve any land for the common purpose including extension of the village abadi and there is no requirement imposed in the section that the land reserved should be taken from the proprietors and other ..... prior to the consolidation and in addition if these persons so desire, they shall be entitled to be given additional area upto one bigha for extension of the abadi. in the case of such persons of right holders who have constructed houses or enclosures etc. within the shamlat area they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1976 (SC)

Gurdit Singh and ors. Vs. Munsha Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1977SC640; (1977)1SCC791; [1977]2SCR250

..... persuasive value in this court.47. in jayawant jivanrao deshpande v. ramachandra narayan, joshi : air1916bom300 in a suit governed by article 141 limitation act, it was held (at page 301):article 141 limitation act, is merely an extension of article 140, with special reference to persons succeeding to an estate as reversioners upon the cessation of the peculiar estate of a hindu ..... of section 5 of the punjab limitation (customs) act, 1920, (act 1 of 1920) which is reproduced below for facility of reference:5. dismissal of suits of the description specified in the act if instituted after the period of limitation herein prescribed has expired. subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 25 (inclusive) of the indian limitation act 1908, and notwithstanding anything to ..... suits before us, the suits were not barred by limitation.58. the division bench of the punjab high court had proceeded on the obviously erroneous assumption that the learned single judge had decided the appeals only by giving the appellants the benefit of section 14, sub-section (1) of the limitation act. it had overlooked completely the very first ground of ..... mr. sethi, counsel for the appellants, to the effect that in any event the preliminary objection raised by mr. mehta is not tenable as the punjab custom (power to contest) amendment act, 1973 (act 12 of 1973) had not the effect of abrogating the declaratory decree already obtained by predecessors-in-interest of his clients prior to the coming into force .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2003 (HC)

Anil Partap Singh Chauhan Vs. Onida Savak Ltd. Etc.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR2003Delhi252

..... legal issues involved are common. besides, the suits have been instituted by the same plaintiff.2. before proceeding to decide the applications under section 14 of the limitation act in each of these suits, application for extension of time for payment of court-fee is being taken up. the plaintiff has paid requisite court-fee in suits nos. 2150/02, 2151/02 and ..... winding up had directed that the appellant would be entitled to claim benefit under section 14 of the limitation act for the period during which the petition was pending in the court. a perusal of the said judgment of the division bench of the punjab high court shows that there i is neither any discussion whatsoever in the said judgment with regard to ..... , it is made clear that the appellant will be entitled to claim benefit under section 14 of the limitation act for the period during which the petition was pending in the court.12. mr. sharma relies on the above division bench judgment of punjab high court to submit that the time spent in pursuing the winding up petition before the company court, should ..... can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority.' the judgment of the division bench of the punjab high court, which has no discussion on as to why the benefit under section 14 of the limitation act is to be given cannot be a binding precedent.in view of the foregoing discussions, it is held that the plaintiff is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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