Advanced Search Results

The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, a Co ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : CompanyProperty

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 46, 125, 126, 446, 446(1) and 446(2); Visakhapatnam Steel Project (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1972; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 44A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 15(2) and 66 - Schedule - Articles 65, 112 and 137; Government Grants Act, 1895; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 5, 11, 32, 68, 73 and 73(2); Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(2); Central Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 5(1), 5(2) and 8A; Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 9; Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963; Chandigarh

Reported in : [2008]146CompCas399(AP)

recovery of possession of property filed beyond a period of twelve years is barred by limitation as per Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963. It is also their contention that these applications under Section 446(1) of Companies Act … from 1988 to 2007, and therefore, application after twelve years is barred by limitation under Section 66 of Limitation Act, 1963. Learned Counsel relied on Margaret Lalita Samuel v. Indo Commercial Bank : [1979]1SCR914 , State of Punjab v. … villages of Gajuwaka Mandal of Visakhapatnam District (hereafter, Schedule 'A' lands) from A.P.Refractories Limited. Government of Andhra … which would virtually defeat the rights of the mortgagee banks/financial institutions under Sections 68 and 73 of TP Act to issue for mortgaged money. As … Awards were passed during March to July, 1981. By an order, dated 15.09.1983, an extent of Acs. 173.43 (Acquired land - Acs.97.91 and Government land

Chinthlapudi Narayana and ors. Vs. Ramisetti Mahalakshmamma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 65; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 15(1)

Reported in : 2003(6)ALD765; 2003(6)ALT514

death of Anasuryamma, the same is barred by limitation as per explanation (b) to Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act), and so the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a share in the suit property and … Hindu Succession Act is not barred under explanation (b) to Article 65 of the Limitation Act.6. As per Section 15(1)(a) read with Section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, if a female Hindu dies intestate, her property would … the Trial Court.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property (suit property) into five equal shares and for allotment of one

Sh. Nanan vs M/S Texmaco Instructure and Holdings Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

have no recognisable right to remain in possession of the suit premises.53. Limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: On the pleathat the suits were time‑barred, since employment of the appellants had allegedly ceased on 30.11.1996 and … which would entitle the other party to succeed. The object of2 (2011) 15 SCC 273 3 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1415 Signing RFA 674/2025 & … to revoke the licence.51. The respondent has stressed, that the appellants have failed to dischargethe initial burden under sections 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to prove any tenancy: that no rent receipt, or … cited by the respondent, theappellants have submitted, that even assuming its validity, Schedule-II of that scheme does not describe the suit premises; and consequently, neither

Sh. Balbir Prasad Sharma vs M/S Texmaco Instructure and Holdings Limit ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

have no recognisable right to remain in possession of the suit premises.53. Limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: On the pleathat the suits were time‑barred, since employment of the appellants had allegedly ceased on 30.11.1996 and … which would entitle the other party to succeed. The object of2 (2011) 15 SCC 273 3 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1415 Signing RFA 674/2025 & … to revoke the licence.51. The respondent has stressed, that the appellants have failed to dischargethe initial burden under sections 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to prove any tenancy: that no rent receipt, or … cited by the respondent, theappellants have submitted, that even assuming its validity, Schedule-II of that scheme does not describe the suit premises; and consequently, neither

Sh. Ram Bahadur vs M/S Texmaco Instructure and Holdings Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

have no recognisable right to remain in possession of the suit premises.53. Limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: On the pleathat the suits were time‑barred, since employment of the appellants had allegedly ceased on 30.11.1996 and … which would entitle the other party to succeed. The object of2 (2011) 15 SCC 273 3 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1415 Signing RFA 674/2025 & … to revoke the licence.51. The respondent has stressed, that the appellants have failed to dischargethe initial burden under sections 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to prove any tenancy: that no rent receipt, or … cited by the respondent, theappellants have submitted, that even assuming its validity, Schedule-II of that scheme does not describe the suit premises; and consequently, neither

T. Anjanappa and ors. Vs. Somalingappa and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Property

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 15 - Schedule - Articles 64 and 65

Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)866; 2006(4)AWC3638(SC); 102(2006)CLT683(SC); 2006(5)CTC378; JT2006(8)SC382; 2006(6)KarLJ1; 2006(8)SCALE624

real owner. It was further held that the real owner when dispossessed under Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') has to seek possession within 12 years from the date of dispossession. It … means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title … the doctrine of adverse possession, except in the cases provided for by Section 15. Possession is not held to be adverse if it can be … filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property described as a house site measuring 25' x 75' pictorially described

Veeramuthu Vs. Puttalayee

Court : Chennai

Subject : LimitationProperty

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 15 - Schedule - Article 65

Reported in : 1997(2)CTC245

suit, there was neither an injunction, nor an order of the nature contemplated by Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was said to have been passed, the period of limitation cannot be arrested or the time spent … to the opinion expressed in the attachment proceedings. On appeal to the High Court it was contended that Sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act had no application and that as the administration suit had been … also held alternatively that the said decree imported within the meaning of Article 97 of Limitation Act of 1877 a failure of the consideration which … Court on 24.9.1981. The case of the plaintiff was that originally, the schedule mentioned property belonged to one Sadaiyan and the said Sadaiyan died leaving … fresh obligation to pay his debts Under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act. It was also

Lachhman Singh Sunder Singh Vs. Pritam Chand Kirpa Mal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Property

Acts : Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 - Sections 15(1); Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Articles 64 and 65

Reported in : AIR1970P& H304

claiming a preferential right of pre-emption as co-sharers according to Section 15 (1)(b). Fourthly, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (Punjab Act 1 of 1913), on the ground that by the earlier sale in their favour. Exhibit … against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under … reason that they would be held to the terms and conditions of the sale in their favour, which limits their right to the share of Harindar Singh co-sharer to the extent of one-fourth in the Killa numbers … J. 17. I agree.Bal Raj Tuli, J. 18. So do I. - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & … placed on Kanhaya v. Trikha, AIR 1935 Lah 651, but in that case the vendors sold 2

Nara Naik Vs. Parsuram Naik

Court : Orissa

Subject : Limitation

Reported in : 106(2008)CLT473

possession for more than 12 years had acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In support of his stand, he relies on the cases of Butu Naik v. … heir in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 23.23-B. Burden of proof and amendment of limitation Act, 1963 in its application to proceedings under Section 23-(1) If any proceedings under Section 23, the validity of the … decree recorded by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keonjhar in T.S. No. 15 of 1991.2. The present Respondent as Plaintiff filed the suit claiming title … 23-B(2) of the OLR Act is applicable only to the proceedings under Sections 23-A and 23-B of the OLR Act and not to the cases … Appellant is not a man belonging to the Scheduled Tribe is an error on record and such

Munusamy Achari Vs. Rajambal Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 6, 8, 14, 15 and 16; Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 65; Hindu Law

Reported in : AIR1977Mad228; (1977)1MLJ371

yet another consideration which goes against Mr. Chari's contention. Under Art. 65 of the Schedule to the Lim. Act, 1963, a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title could be filed within … become adverse only when the female dies. On the basis of this clear statutory provision, the period of limitation in the suit filed by Rajambal against Munuswami must be calculated from the date of death of Ammakannu, … all entitled to succeed as her heirs under the provisions of S. 15 of the Act. Even if the possession by Ammakannu of the properties … Acts are not comparable, referring also to an article in 1958 SCJ (Journal) p. 262.21. The Supreme … Subordinate Judge held that S. 14 of the Act applied. Applying that section, he held that Rajambal was entitled to one-third share of the properties.