Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.16 seconds)
Documents citing Soora Kulasekara Chetty And Anr. vs Tholasingam Chetty on 13 December, 1937

Ramdhan S/O Bhuraji vs Kanmal S/O Nathuram on 3 February, 1981

42. We may observe that since after the decision of the learned Single Judge in the present appeals, the provisions of Article 23 of the Limitation Act came up for consideration before another learned Judge of this Court in Ram Vilas v. Gopallal, 1973 RLW 92, wherein the learned Judge has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Kulasekara Chetty v. Tholasingam Chetty (supra), and of the Allahabad High Court in Madholal v. Shyamsunder (supra), in preference to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhaskar Narhar Deshmukh v. Kishanlal (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Ramvilas And Badrilal vs Gopal Lal And Ors. on 5 December, 1972

6 With great respect, I prefer to follow the decisions in Madholal v. Shyamsunder Vaish 1969 ALJ 587 and Scora Kulasekara Chetty v. Tholasingam Chetty AIR 1938 Mad 349 skupra to those in Bhaskar Naihar Deshmukh v. Kisanlal Sadasukhdas and Madholal v. Harishanker AIR 1663 All 547 supra. The phrase used in Article 23 fixing the time from which the period of limitation begins to run as "when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated", must be interpreted as meaning "when the prosecution of the plaintiff is terminated by acquittal or otherwise" and the termination of the prosecution by acquittal should be deemed to occur only when the appeals or revisions that may have been filed against the order of acquittal have been finally disposed of. I am further of the opinion that the words used in Article 23 of the Limitation Act "when the plaintiff is acquitted" must not be read independently of the words "or the Prosecution is otherwise terminated". The illogical distinction pointed out by the Bombay High Court between the cases of acquittal and those where the prosecution is terminated by discharge would only lead to hardship and one will have to incur expenditure of filing the suit even before the order of acquittal passed in his favour is still subjudice under appeal or revision filed by the complainant or the State. Judging from this point of view, the period of one year in the present case ought to be counted from the date when the revision was dismissed, that is, 31-6-62, and the suit is within time.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chanda Chandra Dash vs Niranjan Panda And Ors. on 24 December, 1993

In the case of Soora Kulasekara Chetty and Anr. v. Tholasingam Chetty (AIR 1938 Madras 349) the Full Bench of the Madras High Court interpreting Art. 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which corresponds to Art. 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 came to hold that the words "when the plaintiff is acquitted" cannot be divorced from the words "or the prosecution is otherwise terminated" and where therefore a person who is prosecuted is either discharged or acquitted and the revision petition filed by the complainant against the discharge or acquittal is dismissed, the prosecution proceeding terminates only when the revision petition is dismissed and not on the discharge or acquittal and, therefore, it was held that the limitation for a suit for malicious prosecution begins to run from the dismissal of revision petition and not from the discharge or acquittal passed by the Magistrate. The Rajasthan High Court also takes the view that where the order of acquittal or the order terminating the prosecution is challenged in appeal or revision before the superior Court the original order is merged in the order that is passed by the superior Court in appeal or revision and the operative order would be the order of the superior Court and, therefore, the period of limitation will have to be computed from the date of the order of the superior Court in appeal or revision.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhaskar Narhar Deshmukh vs Kisanlal Sadasukhdas And Anr. on 16 August, 1966

The decision in (1900) ILR 23 Mad 24 was overruled by a Full Bench in Kulasekara Chetty v. Tholasingam Chetty, AIR 1938 Mad 349. In that case, the respondent had prosecuted the two appellants for assault, insult and criminal intimidation. The charges against criminal intimidation. The Charges against appellant No. 2 were dismissed on September 23, 1930 and he was discharged. Appellant No. 2 were dismissed September 23, 1930 and he was discharged. Appellant No. 1 was acquitted on May 25, 1931. The respondent made two applications in revision, one against the order of acquittal of the first appellant. The District Magistrate before whom these applications were filed, dismissed them on July 13, 1931.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Nilkanth S/O Baliram Sawarkar vs Shri. Vidyanand S/O Balkrishna Ogale on 3 May, 2018

In ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:41 ::: 13 030518 sa 464.16.judg odt this regard, reliance was placed on judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the case of B. Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Soora Kulasekara Chetty and another (supra) and the judgment of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Sk. Mehtab (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Mange Ram vs Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 13 April, 2018

Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. As per the article 74 of the Schedule to Limitation Act 1963, the period of limitation is one year for filing the suit for malicious prosecution, and the time begins to run from the day when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. It is the case of the plaintiff that his suit is within the period of limitation. Whereas it has been argued by the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation as admittedly plaintiff was acquitted on 23.04.1985 and the suit was filed on 18.02.2006. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Laxmi Narayan Soni Vs. Roop Chand Soni 2002 99 DLT 186 while relying upon the judgment Soora Kulasekara Chetty Vs. Tholasingam Chetty AIR 1938 Madras 349 has held that the words "when the plaintiff is acquitted cannot be divorced from the words "or the prosecution is otherwise terminated". If the acquittal is Suit no. 288 of 2017                                                        Page no. 10 of 12 followed by other proceedings the prosecution is terminated not by the acquittal but by the order passed in the subsequent proceedings".
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahender Kumar vs Mrs Shivani And Others on 4 November, 2024

46. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tirlok Chand Bansal v. Bharat Bhushan Bansal [C.S. (OS) No. 470/2016 decided on 23.03.2017] after considering the views of different Hon'ble High Courts in (a) B. Madan Mohan Singh versus B. Ram Sunder Singh , AIR 1930 All 326 (DB); (b) Soora Kulasekara Chetty versus Tholasingam, AIR 1938 Mad 349 (FB); (c) Bhikkam Singh versus Darshan Singh, AIR 1942 Oudh 489; (d) S.K. Mehtab v Balaji, AIR 1946 Nag 46; (e) Jagdev Singh versus Pritam Singh, 1969 SCC Online P & H 184; (f) Ramvilas versus Gopal Lal, 1972 SCC Online Raj 195; (g) Ramdhan versus Kanmal, 1981 SCC Online Raj 146 (DB); (h) Laxmi Narayan Soni versus Roop Chand Soni , (2002) 99 DLT 186; (i) S.D. Tiwari versus Gurmeet Singh, 2008 SCC Online MP 377; (j) Krishna Gupta versus DD Sadhotra, AIR 2014 J & K 81;
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next