Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sh. Pachhunga vs State Of Mizoram And Ors. on 13 May, 2002
This court also finds that the learned Trial Court had also relied upon the
judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pachhunga Vs. Chief
Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram & Ors. , (supra), WP(C) No. 109/2009
dated 05.05.2011 and WP(C) No. 7/2007 dated 01.04.2009, wherein it was held
that in the case of discrepancies between the area of past the boundary
description of the past should prevail.
The Limitation Act, 1963
J. Thansiama vs State Of Mizoram & Ors on 8 September, 2015
13. The learned CGC further submitted that the learned Trial Court had
wrongly decided the issue No.3 i.e.,"whether the suit is barred by
the limitation doctrine of Estoppel and Perpetuities".
The learned CGC submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate
the fact that the suit was filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Civil Suit No.
Page No.# 15/37
59/2016 after a lapse of 53 years from the date of occupation of the land in
question by the Union of India and after 46 years from the date of
Departmental Pass No. 4/1970 and also after 27 years after the Union of India
had acquired the land in 1989. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is
therefore barred by limitation. However, this point was not considered by the
learned Trial Court. The learned CGC in support of her submission cited the case
of J. Thanzama Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. , wherein the Apex Court held
that the Indian Limitation Act is applicable in the State of Mizoram.
Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. ... vs The Official Liquidator Of Mahendra ... on 8 October, 2018
In support of her submission, the learned CGC relied on the judgments of
Page No.# 16/37
the Apex Court in Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited Vs.
Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (In
Liquidation) & Ors., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 707 and Union of India &
Ors. Vs. N. Murugesan & Ors., reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25, wherein the
Apex Court held that a party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, fast and
loose or appropriate and reprobate whenever they so desired. That a litigant
can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stand
in the same case.
Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010
She also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramjas
Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2010) 14 SCC
38, wherein the Apex Court held that the principal that a person who does not
come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of
his grievance and is not entitled to any relief.
1