Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.22 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.Tr.Director vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
In M/s Shakti Tubes Ltd.'s case [supra], the application
filed under Section 14 of the Act, was allowed so as to exclude the
period spent in prosecuting the writ petition calling upon the
respondents to make the payment of the admitted dues. In the aforesaid
case, the claim of the petitioner was partly admitted but the claim of the
petitioner in respect of the escalated price was not accepted and the writ
petition was found to be not maintainable to that extent. Thus, it was
found, that the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition is liable to
excluded for determining the period of limitation in a Civil Suit for
recovery of the amount.
Roshanlal Kuthiala & Ors vs R.B. Mohan Singh Oberai on 17 October, 1974
In Roshanlal Nuthiala and others v. R.B. Mohan Singh
Oberoi, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 824, it was held that the defects that
will attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, are not merely
jurisdictional strictly so called, but others, more or less neighbours, to
such deficiencies. Any circumstance legal or factual, which inhibits
entertainment or consideration by the Court of the dispute on the
merits, comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must
inform the interpretation of the Act, which deprives the remedy of one
who has a right.
Section 6 in The Pensions Act, 1871 [Entire Act]
Prem Chand Garg vs Haryana State Industrial Development ... on 22 February, 2006
In Prem Chand's case [supra], the dispute was that before
which Court, an application for making the Award rule of the Court,
would be maintainable. It was held at one stage that such application
would be maintainable before the High Court as the respondents have
Civil Revision No. 6499 of 2009 [13]
stated before the High Court that the matter stands referred to an
Arbitrator, whereas earlier in a Civil Suit challenging the resumption
order, proceedings were stayed in view of the arbitration clause in the
agreement between the parties. Such disputed question in respect of the
Court before whom application would be maintainable was said to be
bona-fide and thus, the period was ordered to be excluded under
Section 14 of the Act.
The Associated Hotels Of India, Ltd. And ... vs R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthalia on 23 August, 1960
While referring to the earlier judgment reported as
Associated Hotels of India, Ltd. and another v. R.B. Jodha Mal
Kuthalia, AIR 1961 SC 156, it was held that the question was one of
the initial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the proceedings.
Union Of India And Ors vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr on 5 February, 2004
In West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.'s case [supra], the period
spent in prosecuting the writ proceedings was excluded to determine
the period of limitation for filing suit for recovery, before the Civil
Court of the amount of freight collected by the Railway
Administration. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that filing
of a writ petition by the respondents cannot be said to be actuated by
mala fides or want of good faith in instituting the writ proceedings as
Civil Revision No. 6499 of 2009 [12]
the legality and reasonability of the claim of freight of Railway
Administration was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
itself.
Hari Singh vs Gurdial Singh on 7 October, 1999
In Hari Singh v. Gurdial Singh, 2000(2) PLR 250, the
plaintiff earlier filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to
sell before the date fixed by the parties for execution of the sale deed.
The suit was dismissed as premature by the trial Court, but in appeal,
the plaint was rejected. In a subsequent suit, the plaintiff sought to
exclude the time spent in prosecuting the previous suit. It was found
that the period spent in prosecuting the earlier suit cannot be excluded.