Advanced Search Results

M. Ramalingam Vs. Bhagwandas Mahesh Kumar Maheswari, Hindu Undivided F ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Limitation

Reported in : (1984)1MLJ285

the learned Judge.4. The ex parte decree was; passed on 12th August, 1981. Under Articles 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time-limit to file an application to set aside a decree passed ex parte, is thirty days, … came to know about the decree Only on 12th January, 1982. The Explanation to Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, states that for the purpose of the said Article, substituted service under Rule 20 of Order 5

G. Rajarethna Naikkan Vs. P.N. Parameswara Kurup

Court : Kerala

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 14 and 14(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 47 - Order 21, Rule 90

Reported in : AIR1997Ker361

India, but is not apower available to this Court governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act. In that judgment, this Court also noticed that though the Court made an attempt to persuade the decree … Code of Civil Procedure and if the said period was excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the present application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was within time. This claim of

Upload Objection List Dated 25.05.2026 TO 04.06.2026

Court : National Company Law Tribunal NCLT

Subject : Land Acquisition

may not be showing here. Kindly contact us via ANR VS VIGNESHWARA email [email protected] , [email protected] DEVELOPWELL PRIVATE LIMITED (VDWPL) & ORSIBC under Sec 7 5/26/2026 Henna George 2 5/13/2026 Company Petition IB (IBC) 710102039002026 UCO BANK … PRIVATE LIMITEDIBC Under Sec 9 5/26/2026 Shivam 4 5/25/2026 CA(A) Merger and 710102042772026 GOPAL CORPCO LIMITED VS Amalgamation(Companies Act) CAPABLE BUILDWELL PRIVATE No. of Objections: - 1. Case type is wrong in PDF. Kindly correct it as

Kanbi Ramji Hirji Vs. Kanbi Ramji Gopal and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 63 - Order 1, Rule 8; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 98; Transfer of Property - Sections 53

Reported in : AIR1974Guj153; (1974)0GLR243

If the suit was filed under Order 21, Rule 63 it was governed by Article 98 of the Limitation, Act, 1963, which prescribes one year as the period of limitation commencing from the date of the final order, … March, 1967, It was, therefore, filed within time,8. The trial Court has, however, applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which corresponds to Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Article 113 is a residuary article.

Thacker Dungershi Parshottam and ors. Vs. Thacker Damji Virjl

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Limitation

Reported in : (1976)17GLR246

Dharshi of Anjar. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by time under Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963.4. The learned Trial Judge, upon these pleadings raised necessary issues issue No. 5 related to limitation. He … as a preliminary issue and held that the suit was barred by time under Article 22 of the limitation Act and dismissed it.5. It is that decree which is challenged by the plaintiffs in this appeal.6. The learned

Ganesh Narayan Kulkarni Vs. Ganesh Ramchandra Joshi and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rules 63, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 103; Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 11-A and 144; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Articles 65 and 98

Reported in : AIR1971Bom16; (1970)72BOMLR741; ILR1971Bom1556; 1971MhLJ87

of the plaintiff only on the ground that the suit was barred under Article 11-A of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.2. The facts leading to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows:--The suit from which the present … one year from 4th April 1957, was barred by law of limitation under Article 11-A of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The defendant No. 3 in her written statement supported the case of the defendant No. 2.2B. The

J. Kumaradasan Nair and anr. Vs. Iric Sohan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 2(1), 5, 14 and 14(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80 - Order 21, Rule 103

Reported in : AIR2009SC1333; 2009(4)AWC3923(SC); 2009(2)SCALE544; (2009)12SCC175; 2009(2)LC913(SC):2009AIRSCW1921:2009(2)LHSC1206:2009(2)Scale544:2009(2)JT707:2009(3)KCCRSN154.; [2009] 3 SCR 238

S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/or application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, `the Act') is in question in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and … be excluded.9. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, however, opined that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, stating:The meaning of the expression 'other cause

Surendra Nath Kundu, Being Dead, His Heirs and Legal Representatives-- ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : CivilLimitation

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 2, Rule 3 - Order 22, Rules 3 and 9; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 120 and 121

Reported in : (1995)1CALLT141(HC)

round and say that it would offer explanation. Mr. Mukherjee has also referred to Section 120 of the Limitation Act and he has further contended that even if there is a marginal delay beyond the statutory period of … is marginal which is about 20 days from the statutory period as envisaged under Section 120 of the Limitation Act.2. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing in support of this application, has submitted that when a petition under Order

Divisional Engineer (Operations), Apseb (Urban), Power House and ors. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : LimitationCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 9, Rule 13 - Order 43, Rule 1; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 5 and 14 - Schedule - Article 123

Reported in : 1996(3)ALT365

115 of the Civil Procedure Code lies or maintainable when an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code … to set aside the ex parte decree. I. A.No355 of 1994 is filed Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 179 days (according to the learned Principal District Munsif, Nizamabad) by giving certain

Sri. G.K. Raghupathi Vs. Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : LimitationCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 9, Rules 7, 9 and 13 - Order 21; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Reported in : 2002(4)ALT615

set aside the said ex parte decree and also filed I.A.No.1630 of 1996 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC. … contended that the petitioners have failed to explain each days' delay as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the petition filed at the stage of execution of the decree to attach the moveable properties of