Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 August, 2009
(ii) That apart, the learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the suit is barred by limitation, inasmuch as the period of
21/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.659 of 2017
limitation would run from the date on which the right to sue first
accrues. To support his argument, he would rely upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126 [Khatri
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Another V. Union of India and Another]. In
these circumstances, till such time as the decree in O.S.No.701 of
1992 (Ex.A18) and the Sale Deed dated 27.09.1994 (Ex.B3) are not
challenged and contested in the manner known to law, the same would
operate against the plaintiff, since the 4th defendant is a party to the
said proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant would draw
support for the above proposition from the judgment of th Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 182 [Board of Trustees of
Port of Kandla Vs.Hargovind Jasraj and Another] with particular
reference to paragraphs 21 to 30.
General Manager, Electrical Rengali ... vs Sri Giridhari Sahu on 12 September, 2019
[General Manager, Electrical Vs. Sri Giridhari Sahu
and Others]
27/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.659 of 2017
Sl.No Citation
2 (2022) 2 SCC 573
[Electrosteel Castings Ltd Vs UV Asset Reconstruction
Company Limited and Others]
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Naba Kumnar Upadhyay vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 October, 2018
(v) The argument with reference to the absence of the pleading
etc, which have now been raised by the learned counsel appearing for
43/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.659 of 2017
the appellant / 21st defendant, cannot be countenanced for the simple
reason that the very claim of the 1st defendant rests on fraud.
Therefore, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its judgment reported in 1994 (1) SCC Page 1 (cited supra),
and the judgment in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 806 (Ram Kumnar Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others) as well as 2012 (11) SCC 574 (Badami
(deceased) by her Legal representatives), the claim of the 1st
defendant and the 21st defendant has to definitely fail. In the
judgment in 1994 (1) SCC Page 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
opened with the following words:
1