Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Article 75 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sonia vs Sunil Kumar Alias Sunny on 25 March, 2021
62. The plaintiff has filed a certified copy of the cross examination
of the daughter of the plaintiff and the defendant Ms. Ishita
dated 22.03.2023, from the case having details as M No.
215/2011 titled as Sonia Vs Sunil Kumar. The plaintiff has
pressed upon certain relevant portions of the cross examination
CS No.220/2023 page 33 of 40
starting from page 8, the relevant portion is reproduced as
follows:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Sesh Nath Singh & Anr vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative ... on 22 November, 2019
69. Based on the arguments and submissions of the parties, the
delay, if any, can be conveniently condoned whilst placing
reliance upon the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphulli Co-
operative bank Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal 9198/2019, where it
has been held that; " 63. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
does not speak of any application. The Section enables the
Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the
appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had
sufficient cause for not making the application and/or
preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it
is the general practice to make a formal application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the
Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the
inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the
Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is
no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to
condone delay, in the absence of a formal application."
Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017
21. The plaintiff has also pressed upon another extract of the cross
CS No.220/2023 page 14 of 40
examination from case no. HMA 336/2011 titled as Sunil
Kumar Vs Sonia Yadav dated 12.02.2020 at page 13 onwards
of the written submissions which reads as follows:
Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir & Ors. on 7 November, 2013
24. The defendant has placed on record judgments wherein it has
been held that the language of the Article 75 of the Schedule to
the Limitation Act is clear and unambiguous that the period of
limitation would start from the date of publication and it has to
be interpreted according to the rule of Literal Construction. The
defendant has placed reliance upon NNS Rana Vs UOI & Ors
RFA /757/2010, Delhi High Court, Khawar Butt Vs. Asif Nazir
Mir & Ors. CS(OS)/290/2010 decided by Delhi High Court on
07.11.2013., Delhi High Court on 21.12.2015, Indresh Dhiman
Vs. Hindustan Times & Ors., OMP No. 388/2017 decided by
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 07.03.2019.