Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Kothari & Associates on 16 October, 2015

Dipak Chandra Ruhi Das vs Pradip Kumar Sarkar And 14 Ors on 3 March, 2021

16. Fifthly, the petitioner has alleged that the SC certificate of Chandan Kumar Sarkar is fake and fraudulent. It is already indicated above that the election of the said Chandan Kumar Sarkar was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing election petition no.17/2001, inter alia, on the ground that SC certificate was obtained by fraud. The Court is inclined to take note of the provisions of Article 58 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribes limitation of three years to obtain any other declaration from when the right to sue first accrues and under residuary provisions of Article 113 of the said Schedule where the limitation prescribed is three years from when the right to sue accrues to file any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. Therefore, when election of Chandan Kumar Sarkar was assailed in the year 2001, in any view of the matter, it prima facie appears that the suit seeking declaration that SC certificates of Chandan Kumar Sarkar on 31.03.1990, and 11.06.1995 is illegal, null and void, appears to be filed beyond the mandate of Article 58 and/or Article 113 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. But no final opinion is expressed and the issue is left to be decided by the learned trial Court. The issue of limitation has been taken up because in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates, (2016) 14 SCC 761: 2015 STPL 9107 SC , the Supreme Court of India had observed as follows:-
Gauhati High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - K R Surana - Full Document

Smt. Banti Bharali vs Ranjana Bezbaruah And Anr on 4 January, 2024

"16. Fifthly, the petitioner has alleged that the SC certificate of Chandan Kumar Sarkar is fake and fraudulent. It is already indicated above that the election of the said Chandan Kumar Sarkar was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing election petition no.17/2001, inter alia, on the ground that SC certificate was obtained by fraud. The Court is inclined to take note of the provisions of Article 58 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribes limitation of three years to obtain any other declaration from when the right to sue first accrues and under residuary provisions of Article 113 of the said Schedule where the limitation prescribed is three years from when the right to sue accrues to file any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. Therefore, when election of Chandan Kumar Sarkar was assailed in the year 2001, in any view of the matter, it prima facie appears that the suit seeking declaration that SC certificates of Chandan Kumar Sarkar on 31.03.1990, and 11.06.1995 is illegal, null and void, appears to be filed beyond the mandate of Article 58 and/or Article 113 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. But no final opinion is expressed and the issue is left to be decided by the learned trial Court. The issue of limitation has been taken up because in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates, (2016) 14 SCC 761: 2015 STPL 9107 SC, the Supreme Court of India had observed as follows:-
Gauhati High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/9 vs Deepa Newar on 18 January, 2021

14) The petition no. 453/19 was filed by the petitioners on 20.06.2019. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also not made any attempt to address the Court as to whether or not the claim of the petitioners for pendente lite and future rent prior to three years i.e. upto 19.06.2016 had become barred by limitation as on 20.06.2019. Having regard to the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is too well settled that regardless of whether plea of limitation has been raised or not, Court should satisfy itself that the suit (claim in this case) is not barred by limitation and that the question of limitation can be raised even in the Court of last resort. If one needs an authority on the point, the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates , reported in (2016) 14 SCC 761: (2015) 0 Supreme(SC) 961 may be referred to. Thus, although in the present case, the question of limitation never cropped up, but the Court, while dealing with the claim of the petitioners, is required to examine whether by interfering with the order impugned herein, an apparently time barred claim would be allowed to be brought on board.
Gauhati High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1