Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 117 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Noharlal Verma vs Dist. Co-Op Central Bank Ltd., ... on 20 October, 2008

Bhanwar Lal vs Sriniwas And Ors on 5 February, 2022

The issue regarding limitation has already been discussed while dealing with the same judgment [Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445)], as cited by the learned counsel Dr. Manish Singhvi, therefore, there is no need to discuss the judgment as rendered in the case of Nazir Mohd. Vs. J. Kamla, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321, on the issue of limitation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - D Kachhawaha - Full Document

Om Prakash And Anr vs Sriniwas And Ors on 5 February, 2022

The issue regarding limitation has already been discussed while dealing with the same judgment [Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445)], as cited by the learned counsel Dr. Manish Singhvi, therefore, there is no need to discuss the judgment as rendered in the case of Nazir Mohd. Vs. J. Kamla, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321, on the issue of limitation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - D Kachhawaha - Full Document

Bharat vs M/S on 5 September, 2009

Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Noharlal Verma v. District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur (supra) is concerned, the same was rendered in the context of section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1966, which allowed an aggrieved party to approach the Registrar within a period of thirty days. There was no provision analogous to section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allowing the Registrar to condone the delay if "sufficient cause" is shown. In view of this fact, the Supreme Court held that the application submitted by the appellant therein was barred by time.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

F/M Dhanraj Dev Kishan And Anr vs Sriniwas And Ors on 5 February, 2022

The issue regarding limitation has already been discussed while dealing with the same judgment [Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445)], as cited by the learned counsel Dr. Manish Singhvi, therefore, there is no need to discuss the judgment as rendered in the case of Nazir Mohd. Vs. J. Kamla, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321, on the issue of limitation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - D Kachhawaha - Full Document

Smt.Tara Jayadevappa vs ) M/S.Icici Securities Ltd on 7 December, 2020

18) In Noharlal Verma vs. District Co- Operative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, [(2008) 14 SCC 445], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "limitation goes to the root of the matter and even in absence of plea, the court or authority must dismiss suit, appeal or application if it is satisfied that the suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation". Ratio laid down in para-32 and 33 reads thus :
Bangalore District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Syed Zalil Akhtar vs Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam ... on 7 January, 2016

5. By the order dated 18th March, 2009, the Tribunal for the first time dealt with the question of limitation after having noted that there was two days delay in filing the appeal and there being no provision for condoning the delay by the original authority, rejected the original application itself on the ground of delay. The appellant challenged the said order in the writ petition. The Division Bench has now passed the impugned order dated 8th May, 2009 affirming the view of the Tribunal by following the decision of this Court reported in Noharlal Verma v. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur (2008) 14 SCC 445 and held that the application of the appellant was barred by limitation and there was no power for the original authority to condone any delay and consequently, the application itself was held as not maintainable.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Smt. Ganeshiya Bai vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank on 9 August, 2021

14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Noharlal Verma (supra), it is quite vivid that first proviso to Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 is mandatory and application under Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 has to be preferred within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned and only the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order has to be excluded. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.9.69, against which, he raised a co­operative dispute on 31.3.76 i.e., more than six years, which the Registrar, Cooperative Societies treated it under Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 by order dated 16.10.76, which has become final in absence of challenge to that order and therefore, dispute raised was hopelessly barred by limitation as thirty days 12 period is provided by first proviso to Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960. Since there is no provision for condonation of delay analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by showing sufficient cause, the second appellate authority is justified in holding that dispute raised by the petitioner was barred by first proviso to Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960, which is strictly in accordance with law and it is neither perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Prashant Gautam vs Aakash Educational Services Pvt Ltd & ... on 24 August, 2021

In Noharlal Verma v. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445, the Supreme Court reiterated that the limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal, or application is barred by limitation, a Court or an Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - N Chawla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next