Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Article 116 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gudri Koer vs Bhubaneswari Coomar Singh And Anr. on 16 July, 1891
5. The provisions of Act XXXII of 1839 were considered in Gudri Koer v. Bhubaneswari Coomar Singh I.L.R. 19 Cal 19 at page 25 with reference to the remarks of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Juggomohun Ghose v. Manickchund 7 M.I.A. 263 279 and in Bikramjit Tewari v. Durga Dyal Tewari I.L.R. 21 Cal 274 the Judges expressly distinguish that case from the case of Gudri Koer v. Bhubaneswari Goomar Singh I.L.R. 19 Cal 19 and the case reported in the note, by saying "the only question in those cases was the question of limitation--a question which is entirely different from that which is now before us" which was merely whether post diem interest can be made a charge on the property.
Rama Reddi vs Appaji Reddi And Ors. on 28 August, 1894
On the contrary, in the judgment in Rama Reddi v. Appaji Reddi I.L.R. 18 Mad.
Section 28 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Badi Bibi Sahibal And Ors. vs Sami Pillai on 23 March, 1892
Moreover, this Court's decision in Badi Bibi Sahibal v. Sami Pillai I.L.R. 18 Mad. 257 does not appear to have been brought to notice.
The Interest Act, 1978
Article 132 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Krishna Reddy And Anr. vs Rendankattalai Varadarajulu Reddy And ... on 11 January, 1895
248, and Krishna Reddi v. Varadarajulu Reddi 3 in which it appears post diem interest was awarded under Act XXXII of 1839, notwithstanding that the plaints therein were presented after the lapse of six years from the dates fixed for the payment of the principal amounts. But in neither of these decisions is the question of limitation noticed at all.
1