Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.69 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 44A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Selection Committee For Admission ... vs M.P. Nagaraj on 28 May, 1971
Reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered by Division
Bench of Mysore High Court titled Medical & Dental College vs.
Nagaraj AIR 1972 Mysore 44 (V 59 C 18) and judgment of Madras
High Court titled Natesa Naicker vs. Sambanda Chettiar (28) AIR
1941 Madras 918 on their part.
Natesa Naicker vs Sambanda Chettiar on 21 July, 1941
Reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered by Division
Bench of Mysore High Court titled Medical & Dental College vs.
Nagaraj AIR 1972 Mysore 44 (V 59 C 18) and judgment of Madras
High Court titled Natesa Naicker vs. Sambanda Chettiar (28) AIR
1941 Madras 918 on their part.
Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors on 21 March, 2006
In Hari Das vs. Usha Rani & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 78,
Supreme Court has held that law does not permit rehearing of the
dispute on the ground that party had not highlighted all the aspects
of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully
and/or cited binding precedents to the Court.
Damodaran Pillai & Others vs South Indian Bank Ltd on 8 September, 2005
Order 21 Rule 106(3) CPC provides limitation of 30 days from the
date of order for filing such application. Thus, it was concluded that
an application under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable and
was to be treated under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 106 of Order 21 CPC.
Review Petition No. 506/2011 Page 2 of 10
Delay could not have been condoned by exercising inherent powers
of the Court, inasmuch as, applicability of Section 5 of the
Limitation was excluded in respect of applications under Order 21
CPC. The above view was taken by following the law laid down in
Damodaran Pillai and Others vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.
(2005) 7 SCC 300 wherein Supreme Court held that the Court had
no power to condone the delay in filing restoration application under
Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 106 beyond the period of 30 days from the date
of order of dismissal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act excludes
applicability of the said provision to the applications under Order 21
CPC. Since the application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC was filed
after the period of 30 days, Court has no power to entertain the
application for restoration of execution petition beyond a period of
30 days by invoking inherent powers.
Ramdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan vs Bani Kant Das & Ors on 19 November, 2010
In Ramdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan vs. Bani Kant
Das & Others JT 2010 (12) SC 516, it was held that a question
which was open to be raised in the original proceeding, but not
raised is not an error apparent on record.