Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
Phirojshah Pestonji Contractor vs Ramnath Janarda, Prabhu And Ors. on 12 March, 1965 cites

The Canara Bank Ltd. vs The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14 January, 1952

3. The first head of the argument was that no period of limitation was provided for an application under Section 235 by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act and it could not therefore be said that the Indian Companies Act 1913 prescribed for an application under Section 235 a period of limitation different from the period of limitation provided therefor by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. This contention was based on the premise that Section 29(2) could apply only if there was some period of limitation provided for an application under Section 235 by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act and a period of limitation different from such period of limitation was provided for the application by the special law namely the Indian Companies Act 1913 But this premise is in our opinion not well-founded and must be rejected having regard to two decisions both of which have a binding authority on us. The first decision to which we must refer is a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Canara Bank Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Company Ltd. (1951) 54 Bom. L.R. 661 where Chagla C.J. and Gajendragadkar J. as they then were observed that the period of limitation prescribed by the special law may be different under two different circumstances; it may be different if it modifies or alters a period of limitation fixed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act and it may also be different in the sense that the First Schedule to the Limitation Act may omit to lay down any period of limitation for a particular appeal and the special law may provide a period of limitation in which case the special law would to that extent be different from the Limitation Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next