Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
India Electric Works Ltd vs James Mantosh & Anr on 15 September, 1970
24. We may also notice that in India Electric Works Ltd. v. Jamesh
Mantosh & Anr. [1971 (2) SCR 397 : (1971) 1 SCC 24], this Court held:
Gulbarga University vs Mallikarjun S. Kodagali & Anr on 1 August, 2008
25. Provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act have been held to be
applicable even in a proceeding arising under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996. [See Gulbarga University v. Mallikarjun S.
Kodagali & Anr. (2008) 11 SCALE 79]
Rameshwarlal vs Municipal Council, Tonk & Ors on 27 August, 1996
22. Section 14 of the Limitation Act speaks of prosecution of the
proceedings in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a
like nature, is unable to entertain it. What would be the true purport of the
words "other cause of a like nature"? The same must relate to the subject
matter of the issue. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to
consider the same in Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council, Tonk and Others
[(1996) 6 SCC 100] wherein it was held:
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr on 5 February, 2004
23. The question again came up for consideration before this Court in
Union of India and Others v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Another (III)
13
[(2004) 3 SCC 458] wherein Lahoti, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then
was), held as under:
Roshanlal Kuthalia And Ors. vs R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi on 17 October, 1974
"In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel,
filing of civil writ petition claiming money relief
cannot be said to be a proceeding instituted in
good faith and secondly, dismissal of writ petition
on the ground that it was not an appropriate
remedy for seeking money relief cannot be said to
be "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like
nature" within the meaning of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. It is true that the writ petition was
not dismissed by the High Court on the ground of
defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the
Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch
as it is not confined in its applicability only to
cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable
also to cases where the prior proceedings have
failed on account of other causes of like nature.
The expression "other cause of like nature" came
up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal
Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi and it was
held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide
enough to cover such cases where the defects are
not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but
others more or less neighbours to such
deficiencies. Any circumstance, legal or factual,
which inhibits entertainment or consideration by
the court of the dispute on the merits comes within
the scope of the section and a liberal touch must
inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act
which deprives the remedy of one who has a
right."
1