Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)
Row Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Row ... vs Gani Venkat Subba Row And Ors. And ... on 1 April, 1915
cites
Ramakrishna Chetty vs Subraya Iyer And Ors. on 4 December, 1912
It is recognised in Section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act, 1891, and the provisions now in question must be taken to have been enacted with reference to it. In Ramakrishna Chetty v. Subraya Iyer 18 Ind. Cas. 64 : 24 M.L.J. 54 (1913) M.W. N. 303 : 38 M. 101 it was held with reference to this Act that the six years' period applicable under Article 116 to a registered contract continued to apply to a suit for rent under the Madras Estates Land Act at a time when the period of limitation presented by it for suits of this nature had already expired. In the present case the claim for rent was not barred at the date of the passing of the Act, as it was kept alive under Section 7 of the Limitation Act owing to the minority of the plaintiff. Sections 210 and 211 enact rules of limitation for suits under the Act, and Section 211 expressly provides that Section 7 and certain other sections of the Limitation Act shall not apply to suits under this Act. Thus the result of the passing of the Act, which came into force two days after it received the Viceroy's assent, was to leave no opportunity for the exercise of the plaintiff's vested right of suit, unless the provisions of Section 211(1) be read subject to an implied exception in cases where these provisions would otherwise absolutely destroy the plaintiff's right of suit, which was in existence when the Act came into force.
Section 7 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Gopeshwar Pal vs Jiban Chandra Chandra And Ors. And ... on 24 April, 1914
L.R. 489 : 25 M.L.J. 131 : 40 I.A. 74. on cases like the present, has been discussed by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Gopeshwar Pal v. Jiban Chandra 24 Ind. Cas. 37 : 19 C.L.J. 549 at pp. 551, 560 (F.B.) : 18 C.W.N. 804 : 41 C. 1125 and 1 agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Full Bench that the provisions of an enactment should not, unless it is absolutely necessary, be construed so as to make it impossible to exercise a vested right of suit. As pointed out by Justice Chatterjee (at page 1129), their Lordships of the Privy Council had not to consider the retrospective operation of special period of limitation provided by a local law coming into operation at once.
Arayil Kali Amma And Ors. vs Pelappakkara Man Aral Sankaran ... on 7 January, 1910
184 : (1912) M.W.N. 652 : 11 M.L.T. 276 Justice Miller who was a party to Arayil Kali Amma v. Pelappakkara Manakal Sankaran 'Nambudripad 5 Ind. Cas. 420 : 34 M. 292 : 7 M.L.T. 115 : 20 M.L.J. 347 : (1910) M.W.N. 516 was of opinion' that Section 210 of the Instates hand Act cannot be retrospective. As the assent of the Governor-General was received only about three days before the Estates Land Act came into operation and as it is doubtful if the public knew of the assent before 1st July 1908, it cannot be said that the public had due notice. It cannot be said that they were bound to assume that consent was a mere matter of form" and would be given as a matter of course, especially as petitions had been sent by landlords against the measure.