Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Zile Singh And Another vs Avtar Singh And Others on 10 November, 2009 cites

Roshanlal Kuthiala & Ors vs R.B. Mohan Singh Oberai on 17 October, 1974

In Roshanlal Nuthiala and others v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 824, it was held that the defects that will attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 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 Act, which deprives the remedy of one who has a right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 47 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr on 5 February, 2004

In West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.'s case [supra], the period spent in prosecuting the writ proceedings was excluded to determine the period of limitation for filing suit for recovery, before the Civil Court of the amount of freight collected by the Railway Administration. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that filing of a writ petition by the respondents cannot be said to be actuated by mala fides or want of good faith in instituting the writ proceedings as Civil Revision No. 6499 of 2009 [12] the legality and reasonability of the claim of freight of Railway Administration was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 254 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.Tr.Director vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

In M/s Shakti Tubes Ltd.'s case [supra], the application filed under Section 14 of the Act, was allowed so as to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition calling upon the respondents to make the payment of the admitted dues. In the aforesaid case, the claim of the petitioner was partly admitted but the claim of the petitioner in respect of the escalated price was not accepted and the writ petition was found to be not maintainable to that extent. Thus, it was found, that the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition is liable to excluded for determining the period of limitation in a Civil Suit for recovery of the amount.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Prem Chand Garg vs Haryana State Industrial Development ... on 22 February, 2006

In Prem Chand's case [supra], the dispute was that before which Court, an application for making the Award rule of the Court, would be maintainable. It was held at one stage that such application would be maintainable before the High Court as the respondents have Civil Revision No. 6499 of 2009 [13] stated before the High Court that the matter stands referred to an Arbitrator, whereas earlier in a Civil Suit challenging the resumption order, proceedings were stayed in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. Such disputed question in respect of the Court before whom application would be maintainable was said to be bona-fide and thus, the period was ordered to be excluded under Section 14 of the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - H Gupta - Full Document

Hari Singh vs Gurdial Singh on 7 October, 1999

In Hari Singh v. Gurdial Singh, 2000(2) PLR 250, the plaintiff earlier filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell before the date fixed by the parties for execution of the sale deed. The suit was dismissed as premature by the trial Court, but in appeal, the plaint was rejected. In a subsequent suit, the plaintiff sought to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the previous suit. It was found that the period spent in prosecuting the earlier suit cannot be excluded.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R L Anand - Full Document
1