Advanced Search Results

Commissioner Customs Department Vs. Smt. Nirmala Mitra

Court : Patna

Subject : CustomsLimitation

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 130A; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 29(2)

luminaries can be summarized as to whether the High Court is entitled to apply the provisions of Indian Limitation Act specially Section 29(2) and Section 5 to condone the delay, in an application under Section 130A of

Nawal Kishore Patel Vs. Most. Indrapari Devi

Court : Patna

Subject : Limitation

of 1996 by Spl. Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur holding that the execution case filed by him is barred by limitation.2. The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether the decree under execution is barred

Mrs. Pushpa P. Mulchandani and ors. (All Petitioners Through Constitut ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ArbitrationLimitation

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9, 34(3), 43, 82 and 85(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24(1) and 141 - Order 1, Rule 10; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 9, 14, 37(1) and 41- Order 1, Rule 8 - Rules 772 to 789; Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 2, 4 to 24, 29 and 33 - Articles 119 and 137; Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Article 181; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 26-A; Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 81; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 58 and 58(3)

Reported in : 2001(2)ARBLR284(Bom); 2001(1)BomCR592; (2001)1BOMLR169; 2000(4)MhLj819

for impleading one Haresh Melwani was liable to be rejected and also held that Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not enlarge the power of the Court with regard to condonation of delay which was

Radheshaym Mohanlal Kaitan Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : TenancyLimitation

Acts : Tenancy Laws; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 - Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 36(1), 36(2), 37, 91, 120 and 129; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 145, 146 and 417(3); Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14(2), 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 29(2)

Reported in : AIR1970Bom138; (1970)72BOMLR326; ILR1970Bom867; 1969MhLJ689

Act was dealt with by the Additional Tahsildar, Nagpur. He framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation. That issue was as follows:'Whether the application of Shri Govindrao son of Ramji Thakre, dated 24-2-1964, asking for

Cotton Corporation of India, Ltd. Bombay Vs. M/S. Hindustan Cotton Co. ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Limitation Contract

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Scheduled - Articles 55, 113 and 115 - Sections 23

Reported in : AIR1995Bom125; 1995(2)BomCR137; (1995)97BOMLR848

suit by filing written statement. Issue have been framed. By consent, arguments are heard on the question of limitation covered by Issue No. 1. I have heard both the Counsel.2. I he plaintiff's case is that it

Anjanabai Yeshwant Rao Vs. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CriminalLimitation

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 417(3) and 417(4); Limitation Act - Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 29(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 41

Reported in : AIR1961Bom154; (1961)63BOMLR98; 1961CriLJ637; ILR1961Bom135

leave to appeal from the order of acquittal be condoned under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on proper case having been made out?'Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides as follows: 'Any appeal

Udhavji Anandji Ladha and ors. Vs. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act 1908, - Sections 4 to 25; Hindu Law; Partnership Act 1932, - Sections 37; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 34

Reported in : AIR1950Bom94

at a subsequent stage of the suit. It was then urged upon Divatia J. that the question of limitation would have to be considered. Divatia J. realised the force of that argument, but he ob served that

Motilal Fulchand and anr. Vs. Gita Rama and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyLimitation

Acts : Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 49; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 12, 134 and 148; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 59-A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 22, Rule 4

Reported in : AIR1952Bom217; (1951)53BOMLR299

purchased at the court sale, and that in any event the plaintiff's suits were barred under Article 12, Limitation Act or under Article 134, Limitation Act.[3] The learned trial Judge hold in Suit No. 1894 of 1937

Mahadeo Bhimashankar Madhave Vs. Fatumiya Husseinbhai

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Limitation

Reported in : AIR1948Bom337; (1948)50BOMLR221

J.1. This second appeal raises a question of law which is whether the appellants' darkhast is barred by limitation, and the facts necessary to understand the question are these.2. In a suit to enforce a mortgage one

Shankar Sadu KamaThe Vs. Chunilal Rupchand Dakale and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 29 and 29(2); Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 - Sections 2(4), 2(5), 4, 4(1), 14, 43, 43(2) and 46; Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

Reported in : AIR1959Bom294; (1958)60BOMLR901; ILR1958Bom1177

holding that the application presented in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, was barred by limitation.2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of