Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Section 7 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 14 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 9 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. And Anr. on 25 February, 2004
15. The plaintiff has referred to Union of India v. West Coast Paper
Mills Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 458 at page 463 wherein as regards the
expression "other cause of like nature", the observations of the court in
that case were as follows:
Roshanlal Kuthalia And Ors. vs R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi on 17 October, 1974
(4) both the proceedings are proceedings in a court."
In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, filing of civil writ
petition claiming money relief cannot be said to be a proceeding
instituted in good faith and secondly, dismissal of writ petition on the
ground that it was not an appropriate remedy for seeking money relief
cannot be said to be "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like
nature" within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is
true that the writ petition was not dismissed by the High Court on the
ground of defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the Limitation
Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its
applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable
also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of
other causes of like nature. The expression "other cause of like
nature" came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal
Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi and it was held that Section 14 of
the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the
defects 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 Limitation Act
which deprives the remedy of one who has a right."
Vijay Kumar Rampal And Ors. vs Diwan Devi And Ors. on 1 May, 1984
14. The main factor which would influence the Court in extending the
benefit of Section 14 to a litigant is whether the prior proceeding had
been prosecuted with due diligence and good faith. The party
prosecuting the suit in good faith in the court having no jurisdiction is
entitled to exclusion of that period. The expression 'good faith' as
used in Section 14 means "exercise of due care and attention". In the
context of Section 14 expression 'good faith' qualifies prosecuting the
proceeding in the Court which ultimately is found to have no
jurisdiction. The finding as to good faith or the absence of it is a
finding of fact. This Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Rampal v. Diwan
Devi observed : (AIR p. 1670, para 3)
"The expression good faith qualifies prosecuting the proceeding in the
Court which ultimately is found to have no jurisdiction. Failure to pay
the requisite court fee found deficient on a contention being raised or
the error of judgment in valuing a suit filed before a Court which was
ultimately found to have no jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do
with the question of good faith in prosecuting the suit as provided in
Section 14 of the Limitation Act."
1