Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.29 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Om Prakash Jaiswal vs D.K. Mittal & Anr on 22 February, 2000
(iv) Reliance is placed on Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. D.K. Mittal
AIR 2000 SC 1136 laying down that filing of an application or
RFAs No.269/2011 & 371/2011 Page 25 of 40
petition by a private party for initiating contempt proceedings
does not amount to initiating of contempt proceedings by the
Court and the contempt proceedings are not initiated even when
notice of such application / petition is issued or reply thereto is
called and contempt proceedings are initiated only when the
Court applies its mind to the facts and issues a notice calling
upon the alleged contemnor to show cause as to why contempt
proceedings be not initiated against him and it is argued that no
such notice was ever issued in the contempt petition filed by the
plaintiff till the same was disposed of and the said proceedings
thus cannot be called contempt proceedings and retained the
character of a civil proceeding;
United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors on 18 September, 1996
32. The only other argument of the plaintiff on the aspect of limitation is
on the basis of the judgment in United Bank of India supra. It was a case of
a failure of the plaintiff Union Bank of India in that case to have proved
institution of the suit and signing and verification of the plaint by a duly
authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff Union Bank of India. That case
was not concerned with the aspect of limitation. It was in such situation and
finding public monies at stake that the Supreme Court held that such
technical defects could not be allowed to come in the way of recovery of
public dues, particularly in the light of interpretation of Order XXIX of the
CPC.
Debjyoti Gupta vs Indiabulls Securities Ltd. & Anr. on 25 April, 2012
22. For Section 14 of the Limitation Act to apply, pleading and proof of
good faith is essential. The Division Bench of this Court in Debjyoti Gupta
RFAs No.269/2011 & 371/2011 Page 30 of 40
Vs. Indiabulls Securities Ltd. 202 (2013) DLT 563 has held that if a party
seeks the benefit of exclusion which is permissible in accordance with any
law akin to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the onus is upon such party to
clearly plead and prove the attendant facts and circumstances and in the
absence of any pleading, argument is without force.
M/S Nina Garments(Pvt.) Ltd vs M/S Unitech Ltd. on 24 September, 2012
Reference in this regard
may also be made to Nina Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Unitech Ltd. 196 (2013)
DLT 57, Alliance Paints & Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hari Kishan
Gupta 168 (2010) DLT 591 and Susanne Lenatz Vs. C.J. International
Hotels Ltd. MANU/DE/8192/2007 where it was held that it is obligatory
under Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC for a plaintiff to specifically plead such
an exemption in the plaint and in the absence thereof, the Court under
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, would be required to dismiss/reject the suit,
if otherwise barred by time.
M/S. Alliance Paints & Varnish Works ... vs Hari Kishan Gupta (Deceased) Through ... on 10 February, 2010
Reference in this regard
may also be made to Nina Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Unitech Ltd. 196 (2013)
DLT 57, Alliance Paints & Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hari Kishan
Gupta 168 (2010) DLT 591 and Susanne Lenatz Vs. C.J. International
Hotels Ltd. MANU/DE/8192/2007 where it was held that it is obligatory
under Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC for a plaintiff to specifically plead such
an exemption in the plaint and in the absence thereof, the Court under
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, would be required to dismiss/reject the suit,
if otherwise barred by time.
Ms. Susanne Lenatz And Anr. vs C.J. International Hotels Limited And ... on 9 July, 2007
Reference in this regard
may also be made to Nina Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Unitech Ltd. 196 (2013)
DLT 57, Alliance Paints & Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hari Kishan
Gupta 168 (2010) DLT 591 and Susanne Lenatz Vs. C.J. International
Hotels Ltd. MANU/DE/8192/2007 where it was held that it is obligatory
under Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC for a plaintiff to specifically plead such
an exemption in the plaint and in the absence thereof, the Court under
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, would be required to dismiss/reject the suit,
if otherwise barred by time.
Union Bank Of India, Bombay vs Suresh Bhailal Mehta And Anr. on 23 April, 1996
Though some of the High Courts in Binodilal Vs. Satyendra
Singh AIR 1956 MP 57, Patel Babu Lal Pranlal Brothers Vs. Pameric
Export International, Cochin AIR 1999 Kerala 355 and Union Bank of
India Vs. Suresh Bhailal Mehta AIR 1997 Gujarat 48 appear to have taken
RFAs No.269/2011 & 371/2011 Page 31 of 40
a different view but in the light of the judgments aforesaid of this Court, I
am bound thereby though may observe that if the essential ingredients of
Section 14 are found to be pleaded whether in the plaint or by way of a
separate application, mere non reference thereto would not come in the way
of the Court giving the relief thereunder.
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
26. The plaintiff on the other had proceeded not on the premise of Section
14 of the Limitation Act but on the basis of the order dismissing the
contempt petition furnishing a cause of action for the suit and which is not
tenable in law. Orders of the Court do not ordinarily/normally furnish cause
of action save for preferring a remedy thereagainst (See Union of India Vs.
M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59). All that the Court in the present case did
while dismissing the contempt petition filed by the plaintiff, was to state that
if the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of recovery of monies, for payment
of which direction was sought in the contempt petition, he should take
appropriate remedy therefor. It is not as if the right to the
wages/emoluments claimed in the suit accrued to the plaintiff by passing of
the said order. The said right had accrued as aforesaid, when the wages
became due and from which date the limitation commenced running.
RFAs No.269/2011 & 371/2011 Page 34 of 40
Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not a causus provision but an exclusion
provision which applies only to exclude the time specified therein, which
otherwise continues running from the accrual of cause of action. Thus, the
pleading of the plaintiff, of the cause of action having accrued on dismissal
of the contempt petition, cannot be construed as a pleading for exclusion of
time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.