Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 25 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Lucky Star Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Delhi Development Authority ... on 3 September, 2004
In the case of M/s Lucky Star Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
the Division Bench had held that the rejection of the highest bid of the
appellant after a lapse of one year four months and failure on the part
of the DDA to return the earnest money deposited by the appellant for
about four months after the rejection of his bid, cannot be construed
as an act done or purported to be done in pursuance to the provisions
of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 or any rule or regulation framed
thereunder, so as to attract the provisions of Section 53B(2) of the
Act. To fortify its view, the Division Bench had referred to the following
decisions rendered on the same lines:-
Durga Chand Kaushish vs Union Of India And Anr. on 26 May, 1971
In the case of Durga Chand Kaushik (supra),
where a suit was instituted for recovery of amounts purportedly
charged by the DDA in excess of what was due under the lease, it was
held that collection of excess amount could not be treated as an act
CS(OS) 1936/2014 Page 16 of 20
that falls within the scope of the Delhi Development Act and
consequently, it could not be urged that there can be a reduction of
the period of limitation, as envisaged under Section 53B(2) of the Act.
It was particularly observed that such a provision, which restricts the
larger period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, ought to
be construed strictly and in this context, the Division Bench had made
the following pertinent observations :-
Vishwanath Sadashiv Natu vs The Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 17 March, 1938
In the case of Vishwanath Sadashiv Nathu (supra), the Division
Bench of Bombay High Court had held that the act of Municipal
Corporation of Bombay in issuing debentures containing option of
renewal and giving effect to that option were not acts required to be
undertaken under the Municipal Corporation of Bombay Act and
therefore, protection under Section 527 was unavailable.
S.V. Mandlik vs The Borough Municipality on 18 March, 1943
In the case
of S.V. Mandlik (supra), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
had held that a deliberate breach of the contract cannot be treated as
an act done in pursuance of the statute and therefore a notice under
Section 206 of the Act was not necessary before instituting a suit
based on a contract.
Municipal Borough Of Ahmedabad vs Jayantilal Chhotalal Patel on 9 April, 1947
In the case of Jayantlal Chhotalal Patel (supra), a Full Bench of
Bombay High Court held that the provision of Section 206 of the Act
contains a restriction on the ordinary rights of the litigants and
therefore, it ought to be construed strictly and applied only to such
suits that fall within the ambit of the Section, which are in respect of
anything done or purported to have been done by the Municipality in
pursuance to the Act.