Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 80 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 74 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Gian Singh on 26 February, 1970
(16) I will first take up the plaintiff's claim for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's contention is that he was falsely implicated because of ulterior motives, as is apparent from the fact that he was honourably acquitted. The prosecution against the plaintiff failed on account of lack of evidence as is evident from a perusal of the certified copy of the judgment of the Magistrate, Exhibit Public Witness . 10/6. There is no observation in the said judgment to warrant the suggestion that the prosecution was malicious or motivated. The allegation in the plaint is that it was defendant No. 3 who lodged a false complaint against the plaint ff. Defendant No. 3 is Shri N. D" Tekchandani. The plaintiff in his testimony as P, 10 has not made any allegations against Shri Tekchandani. In this view of the matter it is held that there is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the prosecution lodged against the plaintiff, which failed, was commenced by Shri Tekchandani maliciously or with ulterior motives. If that be so, merely because the plaintiff was ultimately acquitted he cannot claim damages for malicious prosecution. Apart from the claim being untenable it must also be held to be barred by time. The limitation for filing a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution is one year under Article 74 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1963 The time is to be computed from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or prosecution is otherwise terminated. The plaintiff was acquitted on May 8, 1964. The suit may be deemed to have been filed on August l7, 1965. Even if the two months' notice period provided by section 80 Civil Procedure Code is added the limitation for filing the suit expired on July 8, 1965. I am not impressed with the argument that the limitation has to be computed from the date when the copy of the judgment of the criminal court was made available to the plaintiff, particularly when the application for such copy was moyed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The claim of Rs. 4000.00 for expenses allegedly incurred by the plaintiff in defending himself at a criminal trial is also rejected. First of all, the e is no proof of the actual amount spent. Secondly, this amount would also be in the form of damages and the limitation for claiming the same would be governed by Article 74.
Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By The ... vs R. Akbar Sheriff on 30 November, 1960
In support of the contention that it is refusal to reinstate which really amounts to dismissal and gives a case of action to the plaintiff to challenge the order of termination of service I was first referred to Union of India v. R. Akbar Shariff This was a suit where a Government employee dismissed from service on being convicted by a criminal court was reinstated on the conviction being set aside in appeal. He then claimed salary for the intervening period. The rule laid down in this case does not support the contention that limitation for challenging wrongful termination of service will commence only after acquittal or that cause of action for claim that the termination of service was wrongful will accrue only after reinstatement is refused after acquittal.
State Of Madras vs A.Habibur Rehman Sons (With Connected ... on 30 August, 1967
My attention was also invited to State of Madras v. A, V. Anantharaman. This was also a case for recovery of salary after reinstatement and is not relevant to the issue in hand. To my mind the contention on behalf of the plaintiff that it is refusal to reinstate which amounts to dismissal has no force. The plaintiff was placed under suspension because of a criminal investigation pending against him. His services were terminated purportedly under Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules. As criminal trial was pending aginst him, possibly he was considered undesirable for being retained in Government service. The suit for declaration challenging the termination of service as wrongful has nothing to do with the suspension order/ The cause of action for challenging the order of dismissal as being wrongful arose when that order was passed or implemented. Subsequent events did not give any more force to the conditions that prevailed at the time when his services were terminated.
State Of Madras Represented By Secy. Of ... vs A.V. Anantharaman on 29 March, 1963
(20) In Union of India v.Gian Singh Kadian, bench of this court held that the cause of action for claiming full pay and allowances would arise only when the wages become due and that is from the time when the order of suspension stood revoked. The same view was taken in State of Madras v. A. N. Anantharaman. It was observed that clam by a public servant, whose dismissal has been set aside, for arrears of his pay falls within Article 102 of the Limitation Act, and the right to recover arears of salary accrues only after the order of dismissal is set aside either in the departmental appeal or a civil court.. It was observed by reason of Fundamental Rule 52 in case of such an employee the right to salary chases the moment an order for dismissal or removal is made and it is not open to the employee to recover the salary without having the order of dismissal set aside. Fundamental Rule 52 contemplates no distinction beween irregular and improper order which has been set aside by departmental authority and one declared to beinvalid by civil courts. So, the crux of the matter is whether the order of dismissal can be or is set aside.
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Mitter vs Union Of India on 20 September, 1963
In Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India", the mention of Jagdish Mitter being found undesirable to be retained in government service in an order purporting to be a discharged simpliciter was held to cast a stigma on him and so, violative of the rule enunciated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It was observed that test in such cases must be : Doss the order cast aspersions or attach stigma to the officer when it purports to discharge him ?