Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007
In Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and
Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educationa Trust Rep. ... on 3 July, 2012
In Church of Christ Charitable Trust and
Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman
Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as follows:
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Arivandandam Vs.
T.V.Satyapal and another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 467 has
held as follows:
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) on 13 March, 2019
“7.1. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that, as such, the plaintiff has never
prayed for any declaration to set aside the
gift deed. We are of the opinion that such a
prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer
would have been asked, in that case, the suit
can be said to be clearly barred by limitation
considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act
and, therefore, only a declaration is sought
to get out of the provisions of the Limitation
http://www.judis.nic.in
18/26
C.R.P.No.1921 of 2019
Act, more particularly, Article 59 of the
Limitation Act. The aforesaid aspect has also
not been considered by the High Court as
well as the learned trial Court.”
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant
Charity Commissioner and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC
137 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal and Ors. (1998 (2) SCC 70)
it was held that the basic question to be
decided while dealing with an application filed
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is
whether a real cause of action has been set
out in the plaint or something purely illusory
has been stated with a view to get out of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.