Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (2.41 seconds)
Documents citing India Electric Works Ltd vs James Mantosh & Anr on 15 September, 1970

Bhagwat Prasad vs Ramesh Chand on 28 February, 2018

8. The respondent contends that the choosing of wrong remedy will not entitle a party for suspension of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He further submits that India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh and another would not be of any assistance to the appellant, because in that case RSA 219/2016 Page 11 of 12 the subsequent suit was before a different Court. The suit was decreed for the period prior; it had also claimed future damages. The decree was granted, however, the High Court set it aside on the ground that no decree can be passed for recovery of compensation after the date of the suit upto the date of the decree or after the date of the decree until recovery of possession in a pure suit for recovery of money. Subsequently, a suit was filed for recovery of damages in the regular suit. The subsequent suit for future damages had been allowed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the first Court did not have the jurisdiction to try to adjudicate the relief now sought, i.e, it was a different Court. In the present case, however, the same Court could have adjudicated both for possession as well as for a specific performance. Therefore, there is no defect of jurisdiction and it was the conscious option of the appellant not to seek the relief of specific performance. The appellant is also required to pursue with due diligence and in good faith but nothing is on the record in the contrary.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Waziri - Full Document

Ram Dawar (Since Dead And Therefore ... vs D.D.C. Azamgarh And Ors. on 22 May, 1978

17. I have noticed all the decisions relied upon on behalf of the contesting respondents on the basis of which it is submitted that this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the view of the authorities, whose orders are impugned in this writ petition, was erroneous. I cannot accept this position. It is well settled that where a subordinate authority exercising judicial functions commits a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, its decision is amenable to a writ of certiorari. The authorities concerned have given their reasons. Those reasons cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh (1971 (1) SCC 24): (AIR 1971 SC 2313) noticed earlier.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mrs. Rekha Kapoor vs Dr. Pawan Chandra & Anr on 6 October, 2022

1959 SCR 811, 818] ). After all Section 47 itself contemplates transmigration of souls as it were of execution petitions and suits. The substantial identity of the subject- matter of the lis is a pragmatic test. Moreover, the defects that will attract the provision are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstance legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the Court of the dispute on the merits, comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right [See(1971) 2 SCR 397 at 401 [India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh, AIR 1971 SC 2313, 2316 : (1971) 2 SCR 397, 401] ].
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserved On: 17.12.2024 vs Bansal Generation Ltd on 7 January, 2025

22. We may also notice that in India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh [(1971) 1 SCC 24: (1971) 2 SCR 397], this Court held: (SCC pp. 28-29, para 7) "7. It is well settled that although all questions of limitation must be decided by the provisions of the Act and the courts cannot travel beyond them, the words 'or other cause of a like nature' must be construed liberally.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

5. The submissions of Mr. Anand Chandrasekar, the counsel for the appellant are twofold : (a) So far as items 1 and 3 are concerned, the suit for partition is not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, more so when the contesting defendants have not pleaded adverse possession; and (b) Regarding item 2, while the suit is laid beyond 12 years from the date of sale or from the date of Ext.A-1 sale certificate, still the first Court below ought to have deducted the time lost by the plaintiff in prosecuting his E.P. for delivery before the Execution Court and the allied proceedings in E.A.356 of 1988 for condoning the delay of about three years in representing the execution petition and also the time during which his CRP No.3160 of 1989 was pending before this Court. And, if terminus quo is reckoned from 13-01-1995, the date on which this Court dismissed the CRP Vide Ext.A2 6/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 order, the suit is within time. Here, again the absence of a plea of adverse possession will weigh against the defendants. He placed reliance on India Electric Works Limited Vs. James Mantosh [AIR 1971 SC 2313].
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

5. The submissions of Mr. Anand Chandrasekar, the counsel for the appellant are twofold : (a) So far as items 1 and 3 are concerned, the suit for partition is not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, more so when the contesting defendants have not pleaded adverse possession; and (b) Regarding item 2, while the suit is laid beyond 12 years from the date of sale or from the date of Ext.A-1 sale certificate, still the first Court below ought to have deducted the time lost by the plaintiff in prosecuting his E.P. for delivery before the Execution Court and the allied proceedings in E.A.356 of 1988 for condoning the delay of about three years in representing the execution petition and also the time during which his CRP No.3160 of 1989 was pending before this Court. And, if terminus quo is reckoned from 13-01-1995, the date on which this Court dismissed the CRP Vide Ext.A2 6/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 order, the suit is within time. Here, again the absence of a plea of adverse possession will weigh against the defendants. He placed reliance on India Electric Works Limited Vs. James Mantosh [AIR 1971 SC 2313].
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

5. The submissions of Mr. Anand Chandrasekar, the counsel for the appellant are twofold : (a) So far as items 1 and 3 are concerned, the suit for partition is not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, more so when the contesting defendants have not pleaded adverse possession; and (b) Regarding item 2, while the suit is laid beyond 12 years from the date of sale or from the date of Ext.A-1 sale certificate, still the first Court below ought to have deducted the time lost by the plaintiff in prosecuting his E.P. for delivery before the Execution Court and the allied proceedings in E.A.356 of 1988 for condoning the delay of about three years in representing the execution petition and also the time during which his CRP No.3160 of 1989 was pending before this Court. And, if terminus quo is reckoned from 13-01-1995, the date on which this Court dismissed the CRP Vide Ext.A2 order, the suit is within time. Here, again the absence of a plea of adverse 6/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 possession will weigh against the defendants. He placed reliance on India Electric Works Limited Vs. James Mantosh [AIR 1971 SC 2313].
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

K.Palanichamy Gounder vs Kandasamy Gounder ...1St

5. The submissions of Mr. Anand Chandrasekar, the counsel for the appellant are twofold : (a) So far as items 1 and 3 are concerned, the suit for partition is not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, more so when the contesting defendants have not pleaded adverse possession; and (b) Regarding item 2, while the suit is laid beyond 12 years from the date of sale or from the date of Ext.A-1 sale certificate, still the first Court below ought to have deducted the time lost by the plaintiff in prosecuting his E.P. for delivery before the Execution Court and the allied proceedings in E.A.356 of 1988 for condoning the delay of about three years in representing the execution petition and also the time during which his CRP No.3160 of 1989 was pending before this Court. And, if terminus quo is reckoned from 13-01-1995, the date on which this Court dismissed the CRP Vide Ext.A2 order, the suit is within time. Here, again the absence of a plea of adverse 6/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2011 possession will weigh against the defendants. He placed reliance on India Electric Works Limited Vs. James Mantosh [AIR 1971 SC 2313].
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next