Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
In the case of Dahiben (Supra), on which a very strong
reliance was placed by Mr. Narvankar, the Supreme Court, after
adverting to the previous pronouncements on the rejection of Plaint,
inter alia, enunciated that the underlying object of Order VII Rule
11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action was disclosed, or the Suit is
barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the
Plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the Suit. In such a
case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that
further further judicial time is not wasted.
C.S. Ramaswamy vs V.K. Senthil on 30 September, 2022
In the case of C.S. Ramaswamy (Supra), the Supreme
Court, following earlier judgments in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs
T.V. Satyapal & Anr6 and Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna
Singh7 held that the Suits were barred by law of limitation and,
therefore, the Plains were required to be rejected in exercise of the
power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019
15. To bolster up the submission that the question of limitation
is a mixed question of law and facts and such question cannot be
decided at the threshold, Mr. Patil placed a strong reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Nusli Neville Wadia Vs.
Ivory Properties and Others4,
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In the case of C.S. Ramaswamy (Supra), the Supreme
Court, following earlier judgments in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs
T.V. Satyapal & Anr6 and Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna
Singh7 held that the Suits were barred by law of limitation and,
therefore, the Plains were required to be rejected in exercise of the
power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) on 13 March, 2019
In the case of C.S. Ramaswamy (Supra), the Supreme
Court, following earlier judgments in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs
T.V. Satyapal & Anr6 and Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna
Singh7 held that the Suits were barred by law of limitation and,
therefore, the Plains were required to be rejected in exercise of the
power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Section 9 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt. Patasibai & Ors vs Ratanlal on 30 January, 1990
11. To this end, Mr. Narvankar placed reliance on a judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Patasibai and Ors vs Ratanlal'1,
wherein it was enunciated that an amendment which was sought to be
1 (1990) 2 SCC 42
8 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2025 21:57:02 :::
Varsha wp-432-2024 with cra-26-2024.doc
introduced to obviate the consequence of rejection of the plaint, cannot
be permitted.
1