Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Hemchand M. Singhania vs Shakuntala S. Tiwari (Smt.) on 28 November, 1986

Rani vs . Shakuntala on 4 December, 2012

This judgment is not applicable in the present facts as in the said case AD card was deposited on 29/04/1982, whereas the same was filed before the Court on 27/04/1982 and on the basis of the same the respondent was proceeded ex-patre. Even in the said case the process server refused to identify the respondent. The other judgment AIR 2005 SC 2370 was pronounced on different facts as in said case the defendant refused to accept the summons and process server did not affix the process. All the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent are pertaining prior to the amendment M-19/12 Rani Vs. Shakuntala 2/3 in the CPC and are on altogether different facts to the present case. In the present case, the postman has given a report of refusal on the process and as per order U/o 5 rule 9 CPC, the Court has presumed and declared the service as per report of the postal authorities. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion that respondent did not appear before this Court deliberately and refused to receive the summons. Even non-examination of Process-server is of no use as the postal employee has given his report of refusal which is deemed service. I find no ground to allow this application, hence application dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shashikant Yeshwant Limaye & Anr vs Chintaman Vinayak Kolhatkar on 2 July, 2010

11. The lower appellate court has relied upon a decision of this Court in Hemchand M. Singhania v. Smt. Shakuntala S. Tiwari, 1987 (2) Bom. C.R. 428 for coming to the conclusion that the cause of action arose from the date of issuance of notice determining the tenancy. In that case, the Court held that the period of limitation both under Article 66 and Article 67 of the Limitation Act was 12 years. In my view, that decision does not lay down that when the period of 12 years would begin to run.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - D G Karnik - Full Document

Pandurang Maruti Patil And Ors. vs Ganesh Hari Dharmadhikari And Ors. on 26 February, 1997

Thus, it appears that the Supreme Court has clearly held in this Judgment that so far as a suit filed by a landlord for possession against a tenant is concerned, the limitation is governed by Article 67 of the Limitation Act because it is a specific provision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, relying on the observations in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala 's case, urged that the Supreme Court has held that either of the two articles, namely. Article 66 or 67, would be applicable to the facts of this case and therefore in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is Article 66 which would be applicable. However, reading the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that Article 66 being general in nature, it may also cover cases of suits between a landlord and a tenant. However, in so far as suits filed by a landlord for recovery of possession against tenant is concerned, it will be only Article 67 which will govern limitation, it being a special article. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the suit is barred by limitation.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1