Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003
6. Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel for the respondent Bank had relied on a decision in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani {(2003) 3 MLJ 26 SC and Sections 19 (8) and 19 (9) are pari materia with Rule 6 A (1) and 6 A (2) of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that counter claim in the nature of Cross-Suit is equally affected by the provisions of Limitation Act, for which also he had relied on Rakesh Ahuja and Another Vs. Jagannath {(2004) 138 PLR 249} and Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 4 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Smt. Parvathamma vs K.R. Lokanath And Others on 9 January, 1990
8. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, dated 29/5/2012, in I.A.No.1041 of 2011 in T.A.No.539 of 2002, the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 had preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, after considering the factual matrix held that right to file the reply statement by the defendants was forfeited, on 12/12/2006 itself. Therefore, the petitioners herein were not entitled to seek for filing of the reply statement, later on filing the counter claim. Added factor was that the evidence was closed on 13/2/2007 itself. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had found that filing of the counter claim is barred by limitation, relying on the judgment of Smt.Parvathamma Vs. K.R.Lokanath, reported in AIR 1991 Karnataka 283.
1