Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 80 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Rajmal Pahar Chand vs Dominion Of India And Anr. on 27 September, 1954
In the present case, since one item of the luggage was received on 29-7-1947, that was the date when the other item also ought to have been delivered. The time began to run from 29-7-1947. The suit was instituted on 5-9-1950 and was obviously barred by limitation. The view which I have taken finds support in Darjeeling Himalayan Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Jetmull Bhojraj, (S) AIR 195G Cal 390, Rajmal Pahar Chand v. Dominion of India, (S) AIR 1955 Punj 83, and Gajanand Rajgoria v. Union of India, (S) AIR 1955 Pat 182.
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Governor-General In Council, ... vs Khadi Mandali, Represented By Its ... on 25 November, 1949
7. On the second question learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the Article applicable was 31 of the Limitation Act, and limitation would run from the date when he was told that he would not get delivery of the article. He relied on G. G. in Council v. Khadi Mandli, AIR 1950 Mad 438 and Rajgarh Jute Mills Ltd. v. Commissioners, Calcutta Port, AIR 1947 Cal 98.
Section 66 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Raigarh Jute Mills Ltd. vs Commissioners For The Port Of Calcutta on 8 July, 1946
7. On the second question learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the Article applicable was 31 of the Limitation Act, and limitation would run from the date when he was told that he would not get delivery of the article. He relied on G. G. in Council v. Khadi Mandli, AIR 1950 Mad 438 and Rajgarh Jute Mills Ltd. v. Commissioners, Calcutta Port, AIR 1947 Cal 98.