Advanced Search Results

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

Court : Chennai

Subject : LimitationContract

Reported in : (1982)1MLJ35

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 … 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

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

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 … 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

Jnan Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Manoranjan Mitra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : ContractLimitation

Reported in : AIR1942Cal251

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 … 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

N. Satyanarayana Vs. Vedprakash Dusaj and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : LimitationContract

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 54; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16; Contract Act - Sections 51 and 56

Reported in : AIR2003AP385; 2003(3)ALD884

Secunderabad in OS No. 1783 of 1987, dated 22-1-1996. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of Agreement of Sale dated 22-10-1975 and for consequential direction to Defendants to deliver constructive possession of the … the amount was paid towards the part payment. It is also averred that the suit was barred by limitation.6. Additional written statement was filed to which a reply was also filed by the Defendants, which is nothing

A. Prameela Reddy Vs. Karnataka Mangamma

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : LimitationContract

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 54

Reported in : 2003(4)ALD112

the defendant but not by the plaintiff; and that the suit filed for specific performance is barred by limitation; and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.10. The learned Counsel appearing for … deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has performed her part of obligation under the contract of sale but there has been breach of the terms of the contract by the defendant. Therefore, ultimately

Chet Ram Vashisht Vs. Ram Chander Goel and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : LimitationContract

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 54

Reported in : 2000IAD(Delhi)275; AIR2000Delhi96; 82(1999)DLT557; 1999(51)DRJ694

and conditions in the agreement - cum - receipt. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was stated that time was the essence of the contract and that it was specifically agreed between

K.S. Mohamed Ibrahim, Vs. Mohamed Habibullah

Court : Chennai

Subject : LimitationContract

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 3(1) and 4 to 24 - Schedule - Articles 47 and 54

Reported in : (2008)2MLJ589

even as per the pleadings, the trial court should have decided that the suit claim was barred by limitation, for which, he drew the attention of this Court to Section 3 of The Limitation Act, 1963. As … to the respondent / plaintiff, the appellants and others were evading the performance of their part of the contract. Hence, he issued a legal notice, dated 06.11.1989, marked as Ex.A.2. The appellants 1 and 2 sent a

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 … 1. This is suit filed by the plaintiff for compensation for breach of contract. The defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement. Issue have been framed. By consent, arguments are

Kuldip Dube Vs. Mahaul Dubb and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : LimitationContract

Reported in : (1912)ILR34All43

Indian Limitation Act. If the suit can in fact be regarded as one 'for specific performance of a contract 'within the meaning of the said article, it should presumably have been brought within three years of the … in satisfaction of certain family debts, but dismissed the claim for Rs. 850 and interest as barred by limitation. The plaintiff appealed, and there was a cross objection by the defendants regarding another item in the account.

V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : LimitationContract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16 and 28; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 54; Constitution of India - Article 136

Reported in : AIR1999SC918; 1999(1)ALLMR(SC)706; 1999(1)CTC409; JT1999(1)SC216; (1999)IIMLJ33(SC); 1999(1)SCALE219; (1999)4SCC702; [1999]1SCR349; 1999(1)LC486(SC)

was of the view that in spite of the fact that suit was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court can nevertheless see that even where … the judgment-debtor failed to perform his part of the agreements, decree-holders filed suits for specific performance of the contract of sale in the court of the District Munsif, Pudukottai. The suits were decreed in favour of the