Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.52 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Firm Ramnath Ramchander vs Firm Bhagatram And Co. on 11 November, 1959
10. Plaintiff claims exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting the
compliant and its appeals in USA for the same subject matter. On this issue,
Defendant has raised a jurisdictional objection that cases instituted in a
'foreign court' cannot be included in the calculation of limitation. This
contention cannot be accepted, in light of the decisive view taken by the full
bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Firm Ramnath Ramchandra v. Firm
CS(OS) 155/2021 Page 9 of 17
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
Shiju Jacob Varghese & Anr. vs Tower Visiion Ltd. & Ors. on 16 November, 2012
"13. Mr. Sibal rightly points out that despite the above orders having been
passed prior to the Plaintiff filing the present suit, the Plaintiff has neither chosen
to describe in detail what those orders were nor has he placed on record copies
thereof. Relying on a decision in Shiju Jacob Varghese v. Tower Vision Ltd. 196
(2013) DLT 385, Mr. Sibal urged for dismissal of the suit as it constituted an
abuse of the process of the Court. He urged that if the reliefs sought for in the
present suit are entertained, it might result in conflicting orders being passed. He
urged that the comity of jurisdictions should be respected and the present suit
should be dismissed.
Alka Gupta vs Narender Kumar Gupta on 27 September, 2010
14. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff, on the other hand, placed reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010)
10 SCC 141 and submitted that at present the Court ought not to take a
precipitate decision on dismissal of the suit at the initial stage. The passing of an
interlocutory order by the New York Court would, according to him, not
constitute res judicata.
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mahinder Kaur & Anr. vs Pamela Manmohan Singh & Ors. on 29 May, 2015
In support, reliance is placed on the judgments of this
Court in Mahinder Kaur and Anr. v. Pamela Manmohan Singh and
Ors.,3 and S.V. Krishnier v. A.R. Ramchandra Iyer and Ors.4
3.6. This Court, in several cases, had declined the exercise of discretion in
a Plaintiff's favour and refused to afford such benefit of exclusion of
time in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as their
conduct demonstrated a lack of good faith. In the instant case, there
were other suits pending between the parties where rival claims as to
ownership of shares were hotly contested for many years. No logic
has been put forth by the Plaintiff for instituting the New York
complaint when litigation in five other suits, concerning the same
subject matter i.e., shareholding of the parties, was already pending
adjudication before this Court. This demonstrates that the Plaintiffs
only sought to circumvent and bypass the jurisdiction of Indian
Courts, by filing the New York complaint, and this prima facie shows
a lack of good faith.