Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001
In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9
SCC 106] , the Court observed that a distinction must be
made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a
case where the delay is of few days and whereas in the
former case the consideration of prejudice to the other
side will be a relevant factor, in the latter case no such
consideration arises.
N. Balaji vs Virendra Singh & Ors on 5 October, 2004
In the meantime, the
constituted attorney of the respondent had tendered her resignation on
1
N. Balaji v. Virendra Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 312 & B.T. Purushothama Rai
v. K.G. Uthaya, (2011) 14 SCC 86
Crl MC 151/2010 Page 12 of 14
10.02.2009 which was accepted on 15.04.2009. The 15 day period
provided by the statutory notice expired on 11.4.2009. The 30 day
period prescribed for filing the complaint expired on 10.05.2009. The
new attorney joined the office on 18.05.2009. A power of attorney
authorising him was executed on 03.06.2009 at the Bombay office.
The power of attorney was made available on 14.06.2009 by which
time the courts had closed for summer vacations.
B.T. Purushothama Rai vs K.G. Uthaya & Ors on 22 November, 2011
In the meantime, the
constituted attorney of the respondent had tendered her resignation on
1
N. Balaji v. Virendra Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 312 & B.T. Purushothama Rai
v. K.G. Uthaya, (2011) 14 SCC 86
Crl MC 151/2010 Page 12 of 14
10.02.2009 which was accepted on 15.04.2009. The 15 day period
provided by the statutory notice expired on 11.4.2009. The 30 day
period prescribed for filing the complaint expired on 10.05.2009. The
new attorney joined the office on 18.05.2009. A power of attorney
authorising him was executed on 03.06.2009 at the Bombay office.
The power of attorney was made available on 14.06.2009 by which
time the courts had closed for summer vacations.
Pawan Kumar Ralli vs Maninder Singh Narula on 11 August, 2014
10. The Supreme Court of India in Pawan Kumar Ralli v. Maninder
Singh Narula, (2014) 15 SCC 245 has held that the remedy of seeking
condonation of delay has been provided to enable a genuine litigant to
pursue his case against a defaulter by overcoming the technical
difficulty of limitation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
In Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC
361] this Court while interpreting Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, laid down the following proposition: (AIR
pp. 363-64, para 7)
"7. In construing Section 5 (of the Limitation
Act) it is relevant to bear in mind two important
considerations. The first consideration is that the
expiration of the period of limitation prescribed
for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour
of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding
between the parties. In other words, when the
period of limitation prescribed has expired the
decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law
of limitation to treat the decree as beyond
Crl MC 151/2010 Page 6 of 14
challenge, and this legal right which has accrued
to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be
light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration
which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause
for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to
the court to condone delay and admit the appeal.