Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.45 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 28 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015
61. The next challenge of the petitioner is to the rejection of claim of
interest on the amount of security deposit ordered to be refunded in the
Impugned Award. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
respondent was wrongfully retaining the security deposit, it cannot
escape the liability to pay interest. He places reliance on the judgment of
Kailash Nath Associates vs. DDA (Supra) and in Union of India vs. N.K.
Garg and Co., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13324.
M.P. Steel Corporation vs Commnr. Of Central Excise on 23 April, 2015
In M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
(2015) 7 SCC 58, the Supreme Court re-emphasized that Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 is based on the principle which advances the
cause of justice and the Courts must always lean in favour of advancing
the cause of justice, since justice and reason is at the heart of all
legislation.
Consolidated Engg.Enterprises vs Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors on 3 April, 2008
In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 169, the Supreme
Court explained the policy of Section 14 and the approach to be adopted
by the Courts in the following words:-
Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965
In Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, (1966) 2 SCR 286, the
Supreme Court has held that though a plea is not specifically taken in the
pleadings, the same would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying
upon it if the other party knew that the said plea was involved in the trial
and had the opportunity to meet the same. I may only quote paragraph 10
of the judgment as under:
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987
33. The above judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in Ram
Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors.,
(1987) 2 SCC 555, which in turn was approved in Smt. Rajbir Kaur and
Anr. v. M/s S.Chokesiri and Co. (1989) 1 SCC 19.
Food Corporation Of India vs M/S.Chandu Construction & Anr on 10 April, 2007
In Food Corporation of India (Supra), the Supreme Court
emphasized that:-