Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.49 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Northern India Caterers Private Ltd., & ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 April, 1967
There can be no dispute that the right of a party to be heard in a matter affecting his interest is a substantive right but at the same time, a statute may lay down a procedure, the default in compliance whereof may entail deprivation of his right to be heard, giving a corresponding right to the other side to proceed in absence of the said defaulting side as if the claim has not been defended. Such right will not be a substantive right but a procedural right, as would appear from the discussions in Northern India Caterers P. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1067 SC 1581.
Section 18 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Maqbul Ahmad vs Onkar Pratap Narain Singh on 7 February, 1935
It was further held that Section 5 had no application to the facts of the case. On the authority of the above decision, it cannot be disputed that if there is a scope for exercise of limited discretion in an Act. there can be no general discretion dispensing with the provisions of the Act outside the limits of the Act. In our opinion, a condonation of delay in respect of deposits in appropriate circumstances in proceedings under Section 17 will not amount to dispensation of the provisions of the Act outside its limits.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Mt. Sukra vs Ram Harakh And Anr. on 30 January, 1951
In Mt. Sukra v. Ram Harakh, relied on by Mr. Mitra, the Court held that Section 151 did not justify an order for personal decree in violation not only of the express provision of Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code but also of the decree itself in the case. This case has no application to the facts of the case.
Padam Sen And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 September, 1960
13. Mr. Mitra lastly relied on the decision in Padam Sen v. the State of Uttar Pradesh. in which the Supreme Court while setting aside the impugned order appointing a Commissioner under Section 151 for seizure of account books of a litigant which could be summoned and adverse presumption drawn if not produced, held that the powers saved by Section 151 are not powers over substantive right which a litigant possesses. In discussing the scope and ambit of Section 151, it was observed :