Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.37 seconds)Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions
of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by
this Court, it is evident that:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Madanlal vs Shyamlal on 9 November, 2001
"11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be
given a liberal interpretation to ensure that
substantial justice is done, but only so long as
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
cannot be imputed to the party concerned,
whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished,
can be decided on the facts of a particular case and
no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v.
Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100]
and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC
195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201] .)
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
"11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be
given a liberal interpretation to ensure that
substantial justice is done, but only so long as
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
cannot be imputed to the party concerned,
whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished,
can be decided on the facts of a particular case and
no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v.
Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100]
and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC
195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201] .)
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of
insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore,
limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation
of what may have been acquired in equity and
justice by long enjoyment or what may have
been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence
or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v.
SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510] , Rajender
Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705 : AIR
1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v.
Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448 :
Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors on 16 August, 1973
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of
insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore,
limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation
of what may have been acquired in equity and
justice by long enjoyment or what may have
been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence
or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v.
SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510] , Rajender
Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705 : AIR
1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v.
Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448 :
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of
insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore,
limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation
of what may have been acquired in equity and
justice by long enjoyment or what may have
been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence
or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v.
SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510] , Rajender
Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705 : AIR
1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v.
Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448 :
P. Ramachandra Rao, Etc. ... vs State Of Karnataka Respondent on 16 April, 2002
In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka
[(2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830 : AIR 2002
SC 1856] this Court held that judicially engrafting
principles of limitation amounts to legislating and
would fly in the face of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93 : AIR
1992 SC 1701] .