Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.38 seconds)
Uttam Namdeo Mahale vs Vithal Deo & Ors on 7 May, 1997 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969

Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in the absence of fixation of rule of limitation, the power can be exercised withina reasonable time and in the absenceof such prescription of limitation, the power to enforcethe order is vitiatedby error of law. He places reliance on the decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha &Ors. [(1970) 1 SCR 335]; Ram Chand & Ors. vs Union of India& Ors.[(1994)1 SCC 44 ]; andMohamadKavi MohamadAmin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [CA No. 5023/85 decided on August 22, 1996]. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the order of ejectment against the applicant has become final. Section 21 of the Mamalatdar's Court Actdoes not prescribe any limitation within which the order needs to be executed. In the absence of anyspecific limitation provided thereunder, necessary implication is that the generallaw oflimitation provided in Limitation Act (Act 2 of 1963) standsexcluded. The Division Bench, Therefore, has rightlyheld that no limitation has been prescribed and it can beexecuted at any time,especially when the law of limitation forthe purpose ofthis appeal is not there. Where there isstatutory ruleoperating in the field, the impliedpower of exercise of the right within reasonable limitation does not arise. The citeddecisions dealwith that area and bear no relevanceto the facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 726 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Ram Chand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 September, 1993

Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in the absence of fixation of rule of limitation, the power can be exercised withina reasonable time and in the absenceof such prescription of limitation, the power to enforcethe order is vitiatedby error of law. He places reliance on the decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha &Ors. [(1970) 1 SCR 335]; Ram Chand & Ors. vs Union of India& Ors.[(1994)1 SCC 44 ]; andMohamadKavi MohamadAmin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [CA No. 5023/85 decided on August 22, 1996]. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the order of ejectment against the applicant has become final. Section 21 of the Mamalatdar's Court Actdoes not prescribe any limitation within which the order needs to be executed. In the absence of anyspecific limitation provided thereunder, necessary implication is that the generallaw oflimitation provided in Limitation Act (Act 2 of 1963) standsexcluded. The Division Bench, Therefore, has rightlyheld that no limitation has been prescribed and it can beexecuted at any time,especially when the law of limitation forthe purpose ofthis appeal is not there. Where there isstatutory ruleoperating in the field, the impliedpower of exercise of the right within reasonable limitation does not arise. The citeddecisions dealwith that area and bear no relevanceto the facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 158 - N P Singh - Full Document
1