Advanced Search Results

Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Home Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Madras Port Trust Act, 1905 - Sections 6, 39, 39(1), 40, 41, 41A, 104, 110 and 111; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 102; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 151, 152 and 161; Madras General Clauses Act, 1891 - Sections 3(2) and 3(22); General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3(42); Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - Sections 79; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 92, 130A and 135A; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 120

Reported in : AIR1970Mad48

law by an insurer, as in this case, who has, partially or wholly, reimbursed the assured on a contract of indemnity, or Marine Insurance, in respect of loss or injury to the goods, and who seeks to … gets a complete cause of action only after payment to his assignor cannot give an extended period of limitation to the subrogee by computing the period of six months from the date of subrogation. The recognition of

Maheswari Metals and Metal Refinery, Carrying on Business in Metal, Mi ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : LimitationContract

Reported in : (1982)1MLJ35

that has been sustained by the respondent as a result of breach committed by the appellant, of a contract entered into by the appellant with the respondent. The appellant as stated already is a registered partnership firm … tender as they had not been signed by a partner. A plea that the suit is barred by limitation was also raised by the appellant.7. On these rival contentions, the following issues were framed for trial:(1) Whether

Jnan Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Manoranjan Mitra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : ContractLimitation

Reported in : AIR1942Cal251

join in the last two payments of interest, and as the plaintiff was not a party to the contract contained in the kobala executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 4, he could not … any personal liability on the hundis and contended inter alia that the suit against him was barred by limitation. It was further alleged that no liability could be imposed on him on the basis of the kobala

Raghuvir Singh Bhatty Vs. Ram Chandra Waman Subhedar

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 20 and 21; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 100 - Order X, Rule 2; Indian Contract Act - Sections 73; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 26, 27 and 27(4); Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 54

Reported in : 2001(4)AWC3140

in the agreement and it was held that even though time may not be the essence of the contract, limitation would start running from the date provided in the agreement for performance of the contract. These cases have

Rajesh Kumar Midda Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28; Limitation Act, 1963

Reported in : (2004)136PLR875

one year and 6 months. He further contended that amendment has been made in Section 28 of the Contract Act vide Amendment Act 1 of 1997, whereby Clause (b) has been incorporated therein and according to this … 1997, whereby Clause (b) has been incorporated therein and according to this amendment, every agreement, which restricts or limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights is bad. For this contention, he placed reliance

Hbra Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 299; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 74; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 120

Reported in : ILR1975Delhi526

The respondent-Union of India was the defendant No. 1 in the trial court.(2) The plaintiff-appellant entered into a contract with the defendant-respondent for the supply of meat on terms and conditions which are embodied in the instructions … plaintiff in getting the dispute decided by arbitration was, according to the plaintiff, to be excluded in computing limitation for the suit under Section 37(5) of the Arbitration Act.(8) The trial Court held that the tender submitted

Dhanraj Mills Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Cotton Traders

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 62, 97, 115, 120 and 145

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR1295

been referred to at the bar and the question arises in this way. The respondents entered into a contract with the appellant-mills on the 5th of December, 1950. The contract was headed 'Provisional Sale Note' and under … Chagila, C.J. (1) A very interesting question relating to the law of limitation arises on his appeal and the question becomes more interesting because it has not been decided definitely by

Dr. N. Kasinath Vs. Sri Arun R. Rawell and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 19, 21, 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 21(5), 22 and 22(3); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 3; Contract Act - Sections 73; Bangalore Development Authority Act; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 54

Reported in : ILR2008KAR857; 2008(5)KLJ260; 2008(2)KCCR907; 2008(3)AIRKarR66; AIR2008NOC1620; 2008(3)ICC408; 2008AIHC2294(Kar)

to inform him if the writ petition has been disposed of and to perform their part of the contract by receiving the balance of the sale consideration and execute the sale deed. On 7.11.1990, the plaintiff met … plaintiff is entitled for award of damages?13. Re. Point No. (i): Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the period of limitation for filing of a suit for specific performance of a

Narasimhasetty (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Padmasetty

Court : Karnataka

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Sections 6, 7, 14 and 19; Mysore High Court Act, 1884 - Sections 19; Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 - Rules 6 and 7; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 141 and 225; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53-A and 54; Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929; Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Sections 30-A; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Sections 28 - Article 113; Indian Contract Act, 1882 - Sections 2 and 65

Reported in : AIR1998Kant389; ILR1998KAR3230; 1998(3)KarLJ73

decisions, it has been held that once the remedy by way of suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property becomes barred by limitation as provided under the Limitation Act, then even

Netyam Venkataramanna and Others Vs. Mahankali Narasimhan (Died)

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 16, 17 and 20; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 - Schedule - Article 54; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 23; Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 - Sections 18; Inams Abolition Act; Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1961; Andhra Tenancy Act - Sections 16

Reported in : AIR1994AP244; 1994(1)ALT185

registered sale deed. The first plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Several requests were made by theplaintiff to the defendant to carry out his part of the contract. The … Issue No. 5, the court recorded a finding to the effect that the suit is not barred by limitation. It further held that as enforcement of Ex. A.4 causes injury to theproperty of the family of Muthuluru