Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)A.K. Nanu And Ors. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 2 November, 1987
4. The Board of Revenue in its Ext. P2 order relied on the decision of this Court in Nanu's case (1987) 2 Ker LT 92 land came to the finding that the proceedings under K.R.R. Act is barred by limitation.
Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. vs P.S. John And Ors. on 10 April, 1996
But a Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. v. P.S. John, (1996) 1 Ker LJ 540, overruled the decision in Nanu v. State, 1987 2 Ker LT 921 and held that
the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be made applicable to the proceedings for recovery of dues under the K.R.R. Act. Even if it is assumed that the Limitation Act is applicable, the amount due to the institution notified under Section 71 of the K.R.R. Act is treated on a par with the amounts due to the Government in terms of Section 68 and as such Article 112 of the Limitation Act shall govern the case. It provides a period of 30 years as the period of limitation for filing suits to recover the amount due to Government. In view of this Full Bench decision, the finding of the Board of Revenue and the State Government on this issue in Exts. P2 and P4 therefore, cannot be sustained.
Article 112 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nanu vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 13 August, 1985
But a Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. v. P.S. John, (1996) 1 Ker LJ 540, overruled the decision in Nanu v. State, 1987 2 Ker LT 921 and held that
the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be made applicable to the proceedings for recovery of dues under the K.R.R. Act. Even if it is assumed that the Limitation Act is applicable, the amount due to the institution notified under Section 71 of the K.R.R. Act is treated on a par with the amounts due to the Government in terms of Section 68 and as such Article 112 of the Limitation Act shall govern the case. It provides a period of 30 years as the period of limitation for filing suits to recover the amount due to Government. In view of this Full Bench decision, the finding of the Board of Revenue and the State Government on this issue in Exts. P2 and P4 therefore, cannot be sustained.
K. Appukuttan Panicker And Anr. vs S.K.R.A.K.R. Athappa Chettiar And Ors. on 25 February, 1966
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended by relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in K. Appukuttan Panicker v. S.K.R.A.K.R. Athappa Chettiar, AIR 1966 Kerala 303, that it is essential for the principle of novation to apply that there must be the mutual consent of all the parties concerned. The Corporation having failed to prove the existence of a separate agreement between the Corporation and the appellant and consent of Gopinatha Menon to such an agreement, there can be no inference with regard to novation of contract.
1