Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)
Panchsheel Electronic Corporation vs Jupitor General Insurance Co. Limited ... on 5 April, 1974
cites
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Punjab Courts Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Kunwar Rajendar Bahadur Singh vs Rajeshwar Bali on 18 June, 1937
But the Supreme Court approved the observations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kunwar Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. Rai Rajeshwar Ball and others, (cited above) and held that the wrong advice given by the lawyer was also a circumstance to be taken into account in considering whether the apellant had shown a sufficient cause and ultimately held that there was sufficient cause justifying the extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeals. In Punjab University etc. v. Acharya Swami Ganesh and another, , there was a bona fide mistake of the counsel in computing the period of limitation. Again the Supreme Court held that a bona fide mistake of the counsel in making the calculation was sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969
In Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, , the suit had been actually valued after a successful objection by the defendant at more than Rs. 5.000.00. The appeal against the decision of the Sub-Judge had therefore to be filed in the High Court. Nevertheless it was filed before the District Judge and due to loss of time there, the appeal came to be filed in the High Court after the expiry of the period of limitation. The filing of the appeal was delayed by nearly one year. The High Court held that there was no ground for extending time under section 5 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as an Advocate of 34 years' standing could not possibly make a mistake in view of the clear provisions of section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the mistake of the counsel was bona fide and time should have been extended under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court observed towards the end of paragraph 7 as follows :