Advanced Search Results

Rangamma (Died) as Per Lrs. and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : LimitationConstitution

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Constitution of India - Article 226; Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Inams Abolition Act - Sections 24; Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 127

Reported in : 2004(1)ALD849

to condone the delay by taking ground mentioned by the petitioner as sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Accordingly I.A. No. 245/ 99 is allowed and delay of (1178) days is condoned subject to condition that

Panchsheel Electronic Corporation Vs. Jupitor General Insurance Co. Li ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Reported in : 11(1975)DLT79; 1974RLR453

the part of the appellant's counsel amounted to 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act for not preferring the appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class in this court within

Matu Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Punjab High Court Rules (Civil) Rules - Rule 4; Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Sections 12(2) and 12(3); ;Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Reported in : AIR1967Delhi58

(1) In this Letters Patent Appeal, an application has been made under Section 5, Indian Limitation Act, and under Rule 4, Part A (a), Chapter I, Vol. V. Rules and Orders of the Punjab High

Vithhal Dhondiba Chawan (Died) (Through Lrs. Rajaba W/O Vithhalrao Cha ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR29; 2009(111)BomLR3258

submitted that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on

Satnam Singh and anr. Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 22, Rule 4; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Reported in : AIR1975Delhi104

delay should also be considered. Along with this application, C. M. 457/73 was under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stating that on account of the reasons stated. in the application first mentioned, There was sufficient cause for

Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shri Rajeshwar and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Limitation Act - Sections 5; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 22, Rules 4 and 5

Reported in : 102(2003)DLT686; 2003(67)DRJ169

heirs of defendant No.1 on record and to set aside the abatement, and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing I.A. 1197/2000.2. Defendant No.1 expired on 11.2.1999. Plaintiffs claim to have knowledge

M. Narasimha Reddy and ors. Vs. Begari Samuel

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : LimitationCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 9, Rule 13 - Order 20, Rule 5; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 123 - Schedule - Article 123

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD473; 2002(5)ALT766

the impugned order, the Court below allowed the application filed by defendant under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and condoned the delay of 260 days in presenting the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to

Arun Alexander Lakshman, Proprietor Alraj Builders and V.E. Arun Vs. A ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Limitation Act - Sections 5; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 9, Rules 7 and 13

Reported in : IV(2007)BC441; 2007(4)CTC449; (2007)5MLJ932

the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and dismissing the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. Brief facts are as follows:The appellants/Defendants entered into a joint venture Agreement in March 1998 with the respondent/

Hanoman Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1027

is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit.

N. Sengottaiyan and Another Vs. Shanmughavadivu and Others

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

to file their written statemen. Hence, they were set exparte. 15. Admittedly, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 should have filed the application for setting aside the exparte decree