Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharathamatha Desiya Sangam, ... vs Roja Sundaram And Ors. on 2 September, 1986
13.1. The judgment reported in Vol 99 Law Weekly 833, Bharathamatha Desiya Sangam, Madhavaram v. Roja Sundaram, does not relate to the case where an order was passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Hence, I am of the considered view that the said decision may not be of any use to the case of the respondents.
Pankaja & Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 5 August, 2004
"12. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not to allow an amendment being discretionary the same will have to be exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case. "In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, an amendment should not be allowed. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision also held that the discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 could establish that if limitation is a disputed question of fact and law, then the question of limitation could be relegated at the time of final disposal of the suit.
Mohanlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 21 August, 1979
9 The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohanlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (A.I.R. 1980 M.P. 1) wherein it was held as under:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 22 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Chinnu Padayachi vs Dhanalakshmi on 15 September, 2011
In Chinnu Padayachi & another vs. Dhanalakshmi & others (2012-1 L.W.74) this court in paragraph 13 and 14 held as follows:
Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 14 October, 1982
6. Article 120 Limitation Act, 1908 is Art.113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under Art.120 period of limitation was six years which under Art.113 of the Limitation Act 1963 the period of limitation is three years; but, the principles laid down by the authorities discussed above still hold the field for determining the question as to when the right to sue accrues. Determination of this question is to be made on the facts of each case. In the instant case the trial Court has held that the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff on receipt of the letter dated 5.1.70 although no finding has been recorded as to when that letter was received by the plaintiff. Since the suit was filed in 2.7.73, the trial court held the plaintiff's claim as barred by time.
1