Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co vs National Insurance Co. & Anr on 10 July, 2009
Thus we find merit in the plea of the petitioner that this is a case of
continuing cause of action. Counsel for
both the parties have relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co.
(supra). Honble Supreme Court while
dealing with Cause of Action in the above said matter has observed thus:
H.P.State Forest Company Ltd vs M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 18 December, 2008
7. Shri V.S.Chopra, Advocate for the
respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has
contended that claim of the petitioner was rejected vide repudiation letter
dated 29.03.2004. Just because the petitioner sought review of the order and he
was conveyed vide letter dated 28.12.2004 that his claim was being considered,
it cannot be said that it is a continuous cause of action. Learned counsel thus submitted that State
Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as time barred in view of the
ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co.(supra) as also in the matter of H.P.State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2009) CPJ 1 (SC).
Sidramappa vs Rajashetty And Ors on 9 December, 1969
"Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and
forms the foundation of the suit. (See: Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty & Ors.,
(1970) 1 SCC 186). In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance
policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date
on which the fire breaks out.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1