Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Balkaran Singh on 18 October, 2006 cites

Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector Of Central Excise, New Delhi & ... on 10 December, 1974

16. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, as was done in trial court, that the cause of action must be held to be a recurring one and hence the suit must be held to be not barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision in Amrit Lal Berry Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Others [(1975) 4 SCC 714]. That decision arose from a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It was not a suit. There was no occasion for this Court to consider the scope of Article 58 of the Limitation Act in that Writ Petition. It was only stated that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of the government department had approached the Court and obtained declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievance to the court. This is hardly a defence to a plea based on Article 58 of the Limitation Act in respect of the relief of declaration with respect to an order which was issued twelve years prior to the suit and which immediately affected the pay receivable by them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 281 - M H Beg - Full Document

S.S. Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 1989

In fact this Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989(4) SCC 582), a decision rendered by seven Hon'ble Judges, has clearly held in suits relating to service matters, that "yet, suits out side the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58". In a series of subsequent decisions, this Court has held that a suit for declaration in matters relating to a service is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. { See for instance, Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) by Lrs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 622 - M Rangnath - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991

In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh [(1991) 4 S.C.C. 1], a three judge Bench of this Court held that a party aggrieved by the order, even if it is found to be void, has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and void within three years of the order. It is one thing to say that the plaintiffs might make a claim that they must also be paid in future at the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850/- in view of the decision rendered in favour of another officer of the same department. But that does not enable them to revive a claim for the relief of declaration which had become long ago barred. A cause of action once barred does not get revived in such a case. Moreover, the decree that was granted in that case was only to the effect that the plaintiff therein was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850/- with effect from 1.1.1978, which was attached to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture instead of at Rs.940-1850/-. As we have indicated that was not a suit in which Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure was invoked and there was no declaration granted that the endorsement or order dated 13.3.1980 was illegal and void, the prayer for which is made in the first two suits. It may be noticed that Suit No.461 of 1991 was concerned more with the effect of various disciplinary proceedings initiated against the plaintiff therein on the claim made by him in that suit. We are therefore constrained to hold that the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs in the first two suits is clearly barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 472 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1