Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.99 seconds)Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 17 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khaja Quthubullah vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 8 July, 1994
In fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Khaja Quthubullah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
and others, AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh 43, has held that
the bar of limitation has so many ingredients. If a party
to a litigation sets up contention that the suit is barred
.
Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur vs Miss. Priya Soloman on 4 January, 1999
16. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Mohan Lal
Sukhadia University, Udaipur vs. Miss. Priya soloman,
AIR 1999 Rajasthan 102, was pleased to hold that it is
common knowledge that parties may make such
interpretation of law as they may be advised and in
matter relating to limitation, the plaintiff may
assert that the period of limitation should be counted
from a particular date. The defendant may or may not
agree with such a view. If a controversy arises, the trial
Court has to decide this controversy in accordance with
law after hearing both the parties and taking such
evidence regarding the disputed question of fact,
as may be necessary. Such disputed questions cannot
be decided at the time of considering an application
filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. Clause (d) of Rule 11
of Order 7, C.P.C. applies to those cases only where the
statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint,
without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is
barred by any law in the force.
Swamy Atmananda & Ors vs Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors on 13 April, 2005
In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna
Tapovanam this Court held:
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal this Court held
that while considering an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether
the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something
purely illusory, in the following words:
"5. ...The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense
of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
24.3. Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, this Court held that law cannot permit clever
drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action.
What is required is that a clear right must be made out
in the plaint.