Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.03 seconds)
M/S. Redstone Realtors And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 18 January, 2017 cites

Khadi Gram Udyog Trust vs Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir ... on 28 November, 1977

15. It has been submitted before us that the statute of limitation merely bars the remedy without touching the right. Therefore, the right to recover the loan would remain even though the remedy by way of a suit would be time-barred. Reliance was placed on Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir [(1978) 1 SCC 44] in this connection. The Court there observed that though a debt may be time-barred, it would still be a debt due.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 42 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992

The right remains untouched and if a creditor has any means of enforcing his right other than by action or set-off, he is not prevented from doing so. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha [1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, 503-504 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 149] (SCC at pp. 503-504) this Court held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. Section 3 of the Limitation Act only bars the remedy but does not destroy the right which the remedy relates to. Excepting cases which are specifically provided for, as for example, under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the right to which the remedy relates subsists. Though the right to enforce the debt by judicial process is barred, that right can be exercised in any manner other than by means of a suit. For example, a creditor's right to make adjustment against time-barred debts exists."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 265 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next