Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ramachandra Iyer vs Vadivelu on 16 October, 1987
This Court respectfully accepts the view of Kader, J. reported in Ramachandra Iyer v. Vadivelu, as well as Pratap Singh, J. in Govinda Padayachi v. Uthani Padayachi, 1994 (I) MLJ 312
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
R. Subbaraya Gounder (Died) And Ors. vs K.R. Eswaramoorthy Gounder on 3 August, 1962
In Subbaraya v. Eswaramoorthy, a Division Bench of this Court had considered the distinction between Sec. 14 and 19 of Limitation Act. 1908.
Govinda Padayachi vs Uthandi Padayachi on 5 October, 1993
This Court respectfully accepts the view of Kader, J. reported in Ramachandra Iyer v. Vadivelu, as well as Pratap Singh, J. in Govinda Padayachi v. Uthani Padayachi, 1994 (I) MLJ 312
S. Ramachandra Iyer vs R.M.M.A. Annamalai Chettiar And Ors. on 12 December, 1966
In Ramachandra Iyer v. Annamalai Chettiar, , a Division Bench of this Court had occassion to consider the acknowledgement during the extended period of limitation under Sec. 13 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). These rulings were rendered under the old Limitation Act. where there is no definition of expression "prescribed period". Under the new Limitation Act. "Prescribed period" is defined in Sec. 2(j) of Limitation Act.
Savada Gounder vs Veerappa Gounder on 17 November, 1958
In Sanyana Gounder v. Veerappa Gounder, , this Court had held that Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance (V of 1953) which had come into force before the expiry of the period of limitation for the suit, followed by Acts V of 1954 and Act I of 1956 prohibited the filing of a suit till 1st July, 1955 and the endorsement made on 23rd June, 1955 validly saved the limitation for the suit. That ruling was rendered under Limitation Act (IX of 1908).