occasion to examine the
expression used in Article 58 in contradistinction to Article 113 ... date “when
the right to sue accrues”. The distinction between
Article 58 and Article 113 is, thus, apparent inasmuch
as the right
neither article 66 nor article 67 would have any applica-
tion. It may not be inappropriate to set out article 66 and
article ... article 66 or article 67 would be applicable to
the facts of this case; there is no scope of the application
of article 113
procedure as
applicable to Money Bills, as prescribed under
Article 109. Articles 112(2) and 113(2) mandate
that the expenditure proposed to be made ... upon the Consolidated Fund
of India are set out in Article 112(3). Article 113 deals
with the procedure in Parliament with respect
discuss the relevant
Article under the Limitation Act applicable to the facts of the
present case which is Article 113 for the second suit with
another : 2004 (2)
SCC 747 highlighting the difference between Article 58 and Article 113
of the Limitation Act . He further submitted that Srinivasa Murthy ... this case was governed not by Article
58 of the Limitation Act but, if at all, by Article 113 thereof because there
is no specific
Limitation Act . The residuary article is applicable to every
variety of suits not otherwise provided for. Article 113
(corresponding to Article ... accrues. Under Article 120 it was six years
which has been reduced to three years under Article 113.
According to the third column in Article
three
years.
Limitation Act 1968-- Section 17(1) (c) and Schedule
Article 113 Suit for refund of money paid under mistake of
law--Period ... starting point of limitation is three years
is prescribed by Article 113 of the Schedule to the Indian
Limitation Act, 1963 and the provisions
Prasad v. Chhabi Lal and Ors. the High Court dealing
with Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was in pari materia with
Article ... interpretation of
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , since the Privy Council had already
interpreted Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which
covered by any other Article of the Limitation Act,
it would be governed by the residuary Article, namely,
Article 113 and, therefore, the suit ... provided elsewhere in this
Schedule."
___________________________________________________" These
Articles, namely, Article 72 and 113 are applicable to
different situations. In order to attract Article
Kashi Prasad v. Chhabi Lal the High Court
dealing with Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908,
which was in pari materia with Article ... Parshad v. Court of Wards also the
Court was concerned with Article 113 of the
Limitation Act, 1908. A suit for specific performance
was brought
