Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Limitation Act, 1963

Thursday, March 15, 2012
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 119(b) — Arbitration Act, 1940 — Application for setting aside of an award — Starting point of limitation — Held, the starting point of limitation is the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award and not the date of knowledge of the filing of the award — Appeal allowed.  

 
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41, Rule 22 — Default in filing the cross objections within the statutory period of one month — Court has power to take on record the cross-objections even after the expiry of the said period and that too without the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — The expression ‘or within such further time as the court may see fit to allow’ in Order 41, Rule 22(1) CPC clearly shows that wide judicial discretion is vested in the courts to permit the filing of the cross-objections even after the expiry of 30 days or for that matter any period which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is found to be just and proper by the Court.

 
Monday, February 28, 2011
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — While considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers — All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law — The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason — Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers.

 
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 22 — When a right of way is claimed whether public or private over a certain land over which the tort-feaser has no right of possession, the breaches would be continuing, to which the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply.

 
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 58 — Limitation — Suit for declaration and injunction — Written compromise between the parties whereby the appellants were entitled to retain half of the 2/3rd share of the land in dispute and the respondents were to retain the other half — Right to sue — When would arise? — Held — The question of filing the suit before the right accrued to them by compromise could not arise until and unless infringement of that right was noticed by one of the parties — AIR 1930 PC 270 [Mt.Bolo vs. Mt. Koklan and others] and C.Mohammad  Yunus  vs. Syed Unnissa and others [AIR 1961 SC 808] referred.

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 58 — Limitation — Suit for declaration and injunction — Existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records — Cause of action — Whether mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records can give rise to cause  of  action  as  contemplated  under Article  58  or  it  accrues  when  the right  is infringed  or  threatened  to  be  infringed — Held — Mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of action — Right to sue  accrues when the right  is  infringed  or  threatened  to  be  infringed.

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 58 — Article 58 of the Act clearly says that to obtain any other declaration, the limitation would  be  three  years  from  the  date  when the  right  to  sue  first  accrues.

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 58 — Suit for declaration and injunction — Limitation — Parties to the cause had entered into written compromise on dated 26th of October, 1972, whereby the appellants were entitled to retain half of the 2/3rd share of the land in dispute and the respondents were to retain the other half — Suit for declaration and injunction was filed on 21st of August, 1990 on the basis of said compromise — Plaintiffs in their plaint have alleged that the defendants have refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs a week back before filing of the suit — Specific defence taken by the respondents in their written statement was that the suit having been filed on 21st of August, 1990 was barred by time since it was filed after 18 years from the date of the  compromise — Whether the suit for declaration and injunction could be held to be barred by limitation as the same was filed after 18 years of the alleged compromise between the  parties? — Held — No — Right to sue  accrues  when  a  clear  and unequivocal  threat  to  infringe  that  right  by  the defendants  when  they  refused  to  admit  the  claim  of  the  appellants,  i.e.  only seven days before filing of the suit — Suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation — AIR 1930 PC 270 [Mt.Bolo vs. Mt. Koklan and others] and C.Mohammad  Yunus  vs. Syed Unnissa and others [AIR 1961 SC 808] referred.

 
Monday, March 22, 2010
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 136 and 137 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 20, Rule 18 — Limitation for an application for drawing up of a final decree in a suit for partition — Held, an application requesting the court to take necessary steps to draw up a final decree effecting a division in terms of the preliminary decree, is neither an application for execution (falling under Article 136 of the Limitation Act) nor an application seeking a fresh relief (falling under Article 137 of Limitation Act) — It is only a reminder to the court to do its duty to appoint a Commissioner, get a report, and draw a final decree in the pending suit so that the suit is taken to its logical conclusion. 

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Applicability of — Held, where an application does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court to grant any fresh relief based on a new cause of action, but merely reminds or requests the court to do its duty by completing the remaining part of the pending suit, there is no question of any limitation — Such an application in a suit which is already pending, which contains no fresh or new prayer for relief is not one to which Limitation Act, 1963 would apply.

 
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act — Article 59 — Muslim Law — Gift deed — Art. 59 of the Act provides limitation of three years to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract and the time starts when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him — In the present case the respondent/plaintiff has prayed for cancellation of and setting aside of deed of gift dated 21/02/1973. He became aware of the deed of gift in the proceedings before the Tehsildar in the year 1975. The suit was filed on or about 2/9/1980 — Held, a suit for cancellation of transaction whether on the ground of being void or voidable would be governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act — The suit, therefore, should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of the fact that the transaction which according to the plaintiff was void or voidable had taken place — The suit having not been filed within a period of three years, the suit has rightly been held to be barred by limitation.  

 
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 70 — Period of limitation for institution of a suit for recovery of ‘pledged ornaments’, held, is three years and it begins to run from the date of refusal after demand.

 
Friday, May 15, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 59 — Held, a suit for cancellation of transaction whether on the ground of being void or voidable would be governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act.

 
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 14(2) and 5 — Condonation of delay — Whether only because a mistake has been committed by or on behalf of the appellants in approaching the appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances, the same would mean that the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which is otherwise available, should not be taken into consideration at all? — Held, the answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative — The provisions contained in Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are meant for grant of relief where a person has committed some mistake — The provisions of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act alike should, thus, be applied in a broad-based manner — When Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act per se is not applicable, the same would not mean that the principles akin thereto would not be applied.

 
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 123 — Article 123 of the Limitation Act is in two parts. In a case where summons have been served upon a party, the first part shall apply — However, in a case where the summons have not been served, the second part shall apply.

 
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Whether the use of the expression “date” used in Article 54 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 is suggestive of a specific date in the calendar ? — Held, yes. 

 
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 145 — Whether Article 137 is applicable to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. ? — Held, yes.  

 
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115 — Delay of 447/523 days — District Judge, in the present case, after considering the facts and circumstances supported by elaborate reasons condoned the delay — The High Court, however, in revision application filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. interfered with the order of the District Judge and reversed the decision — Held, condonation of delay is the discretionary power of the Court — If the Court of the first instance exercises the discretionary power and has condoned the delay or refused to condone the delay, the appellate court normally does not interfere — The High Court should have restrained in such matters to interfere with the discretionary power of the court of the first instance — Order of the High Court set aside–Order passed by the District Judge is restored.

 
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137 — Observation of the High Court that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings or grant of Probate/Letters of Administration, held, not correct.

 
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 61 — For a mortgagor to redeem or recover possession of immoveable property mortgaged; the period of limitation provided is 30 years when the right to redeem or to recover possession accrues.

 
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not provide for a fresh period of limitation but only provides for the exclusion of a certain period. 

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — Due diligence and caution are essentially pre-requisites for attracting Section 14 — Due diligence cannot be measured by any  absolute standards — Due diligence is a measure of prudence or activity expected from and ordinarily exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances.

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 5 and 14 — Distinction between — The power to excuse delay and grant an extension of time under Section 5 is discretionary whereas under Section 14, exclusion of time is mandatory, if the requisite conditions are satisfied — Section 5 is broader in its sweep, than Section 14 in the sense that a number of widely different reasons can be advanced and established to show that there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal or the application within time — The ingredients in respect of Section 5 and 14 are different.

 
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 134 — Limitation for the purpose of Article 134, held, starts from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date when sale certificate is issued — The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order XXI Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title — It cannot be said to attain finality only when sale certificate is issued under Order XXI Rule 94 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXI, Rules 92, 94.

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 134 — The period of one year limitation now prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in substitution of a three year period prescribed under Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, held, is reflective of the legislative policy of finalizing proceedings in execution as quickly as possible by providing a quick forum to the auction purchaser to ask for delivery of possession of the property purchased within that period from the date of the sale becoming absolute rather than from the date of issuance of the sale certificate — On his failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to limitation.

 
Monday, August 21, 2006
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Held, it is not in dispute that the suit for specific performance of contract would be governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — While determining the applicability of the first or the second part of the said provision, the court will firstly see as to whether any time was fixed for performance of the agreement of sale and if it was so fixed, whether the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period unless any case of extension of time for performance was pleaded and established — When, however, no time is fixed for performance of contract, the court may determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on the part of the defendant to perform the contract and in that event the suit is required to be filed within a period of three years therefrom.

 
Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Held, period of limitation begins to run from the date on which the contract was to be specifically performed — Further held, extension of contract is not necessarily to be inferred from written document — It could be implied also — The conduct of the parties in this behalf is relevant — Once a finding of fact has been arrived at, that the time for performance of the said contract had been extended by the parties, the time to file a suit shall be deemed to start running only when the plaintiff had notice that performance had been refused.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.