Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 312 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Balkrishna Savalram Pujari And Others vs Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharajsansthan & ... on 26 March, 1959

Power Company Of Karnataka Limited & Anr vs Udupi Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 2 November, 2020

182. It is argued by the appellants that the claim of Udupi Power as to the applicability of Section 22 of the Limitation Act and the decision in the impugned order is misplaced and fallacious. Reliance is placed on Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 SC 798, wherein the Supreme Court held that "(if) the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue."
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 142 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Nivrutti Ganu Parit Decd. Thr. Lhrs ... vs The Deputy Collector Kolhapur And Ors on 2 May, 2025

14. Speaking for the three-judge Bench, Justice PB Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that: (BALAKRISHNA CASE air P.807, PARA 31) (2020) 1 SCC 1 "31. ............ Does the conduct of the trustees amount to a continuing wrong under Section 23? That is the question which this contention raises for our decision. In other words, did the cause of action arise de die in diem as claimed by the appellants? In dealing with this argument it is necessary to bear in mind that Section 23 refers not to a continuing right but to a continuing wrong. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury. It is only in regard to acts which can be properly characterised as continuing wrongs that Section 23 can be invoked." (emphasis supplied) The Court held that the act of the trustees to deny the rights of 10 AIR 1959 SC 798 11 (1981) 2 SCC 790 12 (2020) 1 SCC 1 Page 35 of 48 _______________ 2 May 2025 WP [email protected] Guravs as hereditary worshippers and dispossessing them through a decree of the court was not a continuing wrong. Although the continued dispossession caused damage to the appellants, the injury to their rights was complete when they were evicted.
Bombay High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Central Cottage Industries ... vs M/S Mittal Processors (P) Ltd on 15 February, 2022

25. It was held by Supreme Court in the case of Vashdeo R. Bhojwani vs Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) following the judgment of Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare & Ors. vs Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Ors.(supra) that when the recovery certificate dated 24/12/2001 was issued, this certificate injured effectively and completely the rights of appellant as a result of which limitation would have begun ticking.
Delhi District Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Mohanakrishnan vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 11 June, 2024

“4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. A “continuing wrong” refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. “Recurring/successive wrongs” are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [AIR 1959 SC 798] explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963): (AIR p. 807, para 31) “31. … It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Sankar Dastidar vs Smt. Banjula Dastidar And Anr. on 19 January, 2005

5.4 In Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, relied upon by Mr. Sahu, the distinction between a continuation of the cause of action and the continuation of the damage was elaborated. In the said case, the cause of action was alleged to have been complete in 1911, but the suit was filed in 1922 after a decree was passed, denying their ownership pursuant to which they were ousted, which was alleged to complete the cause of action with the passing of the decree in 1922 and as such the cause of action was alleged to continue till the date the decree was passed. In the said case, the Guravs claimed ownership of the temple, which was denied by the decree. Guravs were ousted in 1911 and did not serve the temple except for three and half months in 1922 when they had wrongfully obtained possession of the temple. Therefore, it was held that Section 23 of the 1908 Act could not be applied in respect of the suit filed in 1922 in order to establish the claim of hereditary servants, which was denied since 1911 and it was only the damage that was continuing not the cause of action.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - D K Seth - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next