Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.62 seconds)
Bhairavasingh Malojirao Ghorpade And ... vs Shankar Rao Bindu Rao Padaki And Ors. on 26 March, 1976
cites
Section 6 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 86 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970
8. The order of the Court in (Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India) reads as follows: -
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Amending Act, 1897
Ramgopal Chunilal vs Ramsarup Baldevdas on 8 November, 1933
In 36 Bom LR 84 = (AIR 1934 Bom 91) (Ramgopal v. Ramsarup) the plaint was resented to an officer in the Prothonotary's office on the last day of limitation. The plaint showed on its face that leave to sue was required under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which could be given only by a judge. On a consideration of Explanation to Section 3 of the Indian imitation Act 1908, wherein, it is provided that a suit is instituted when the plaint is presented to the proper officer, it was held that there was a difference between the "presentation of the plaint' and "the admission or receipt of the suit " Considering the terms of Order TV Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that the requirements as to obtaining of the leave of the Chamber judge and the admission of the plaint do not affect in any way the Presentation of the plaint for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act and that the suit was not barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Since in the present case the institution of the suit on 5-12-1970 was valid, the suit must be said to have been instituted with in the period of limitation under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 85 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Garikapatti Veeraya vs N. Subbiah Choudhury on 1 February, 1957
In view of the amplitude of the word 'sued', it is not necessary to consider generally to what extent pending cases are affected by subsequent legislation or refer to the principles laid down in United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum 1940 FCR 110 = (AIR 1941 FC 16) Venugopala Reddy v. Krish Daswamy Reddiar, (1943) 5 FCR 39 = (AIR 1943 FC 24, or Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Chowdhury, . If the language of Section 86 read with Section 87-B were applicable only to the initiation of a civil suit, these cases might have been helpful; but since the words "may sue" include not only the initiation of a suit but its continuation also, it is manifest that neither the suit could be filed nor maintained except with the consent of the Central Government.