Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.46 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 110 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 August, 2009
In this regard, the respondent relied upon the decision of
the Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. Union of
India and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126, more particularly
paragraph No.30 thereof, is hereunder quoted verbatim for easy
reference:
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) on 13 March, 2019
"29. 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
30
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 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.
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal on 19 April, 2017
28. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madanuri Sri Rama
Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174, has
observed and held that, on reading the plaint it discloses that, neither
24
there is cause of action nor that it is barred by any law, the plaint is
required to be rejected. Clever drafting of the plaint to create an illusive
cause of action should not come in the way of the Court to nip in the
bud such bogus litigation. Paragraph No.7 of the judgment is hereunder
quoted below:
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
29. Further, in the case of T Arivandandam v. T V Satyapal
and Another reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, has observed that,
should clever drafting create an illusion the same has to be nipped in
the bud. Paragraph No.5 of the judgment is hereunder quoted below: