Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Article 181 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Lakhimani Dassi vs Dwijendra Nath Mukerjee on 20 June, 1918
67 but the judgments both of Rankin, J., in that ease, and of Chaudhuri, J. in Lakhimani Dassi v. Diuijendra Nath Mukerjee [1918] 46 Cal. 249 indicate that in certain circumstances the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, should take into account the fact that if the attorney be referred to the remedy of a regular suit that suit must be dismissed as being time barred.
Atul Chunder Ghose vs Lakshman Chunder Sen on 23 February, 1909
9. By Article 84 of that Act the date from which the three years' period of limitation provided by the article begins to run is the date of the termination of the suit or business. I am asked to hold that the final decree of 8th May 1916 is the termination of this suit within the meaning of the article. To do so would, I think, be potently absurd; in many proceedings of which administration suits are an example the so-called final decree is very far from being the termination of the suit. Moreover, Atal Chunder Ghose V. Lakshman Chunder Sen [1909] 36 Cal. 609 appears to me an authority for the proposition that the period of limitation in an attorney's suit; for taxed costs does not begin to run until at the earliest the issue of the allocatur.
1