Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: limitation act 1963 36 of 1963 section 5 extension of prescribed period in certain cases Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 76 results (0.112 seconds)

Karan Kumar Yadav Vs. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1987

..... applies to the miscellaneous applications moved during pendency of the claim petition.11. section 5(1)(b) of the u.p. public services (tribunal) act, 1976 reads as follows:5(1)(b). the provisions of the limitation act, 1963 (act 36 of 1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply to reference under section 4 as if a reference were a suit filed in civil court so, however, that--(i ..... ) notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in the schedule to the said. act, the period of limitation for such reference shall be one year;(ii) in computing the .....

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. the Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1972All486

..... s share of property including money in the form of g. p. notes. the court observed that 'specific movable property' mentioned in articles 48 and 49, limitation act, cover a suit wherein the plaintiff can allege that he is entitled to certain specific movable property and/or of which he is presently entitled to possession in ..... rules. the officers of the sub-treasury discharged their obligations under the law and so for their misconduct the state government was not liable.9. article 62, limitation act, 1908, governs suit for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. in gorakhpur electric ..... of limitation of two years which commences to run when the malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance takes place. nonfeasance is omission of some act which a man is by law bound to do. misfeasance is the improper performance of some lawful act, and malfeasance is the commission of some act which is in itself unlawful. article 36 is .....

Ms Larsen and Toubro Limited. Vs. Ms Maharaji Educational Trust

Court : Allahabad

..... and if so then set aside the same without regard to the fact that the objection petition under section 30 of the act filed by the appellant was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by article 119 (b) of the limitation act, 1963. however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider such a course to follow as a futile exercise ..... open to challenge the validity of the same in any proceedings on any ground whatsoever. it has further been urged that section 36 of the act only provides a mode for enforcement of the award and for that very limited purpose, the court can invoke the provisions of the c.p.c., otherwise, the provisions of the c.p.c. are ..... be allowed to be raised again and again by pressing into service section 47 of the code of civil procedure at the time of execution of award under section 36 of the act. 28. in view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, the applicant did not have any right to challenge the enforceability of the award by taking recourse to .....

Gauri Shankar Vs. Nathu Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1951All589

..... to the pltf. on that date to recover the amount from the defts.-mtgees. & the present suit to the extent of the said amount was obviously barred by article 115, limitation act.36. learned counsel for the pltf.-applt. sought to avoid this situation on the authority of the f. b. case of this ct. in tilak ram v. suresh singh : ..... suit. this section, therefore, had no application in this case.19. the arguments then turned to a consideration of the question as to which of two other articles 115 & 116, limitation act, applied, the former prescribing a period of three & the latter prescribing a period of six years from : (l) the date when the contract is broken, (2) in case ..... of the judicial committee in izat-un-nisa begum v. pratap singh, 36 i. a. 203: 31 all. 583 (p.c.) that a covenant by the purchaser to pay a certain amount to the vendor's creditors was a contract of indemnity within the meaning of article 83, limitation act. but, while this may be true as a general proposition, it .....

Shiam Lal J. Dewan Vs. Official Liquidators of the U.P. Oil Mills Co., ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1933All789; 145Ind.Cas.893

..... under the heading of 'suit.' this was a letters patent appeal and the learned single judge had dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by article 36, limitation act. it was pointed out that it was an 'application' that was before the court and not a suit. it was probably owing to these decisions that the ..... just quoted, viz., d. connell v. himalaya bank ltd. (1895) 18 all 12, it was held that to the special proceeding provided by section 214 companies act, 1882, article 36, limitation act, was not applicable.81. now, coming to consider what is the-most suitable article for what may be. described as the 'liquidator's suit.'' article ..... the existing rights which apart from the section might have been vindicated by means of a suit and that the article applicable was article 36, limitation act, with the starting point from the date of the act of the misfeasance. the question also arose before the madras high court in the case of v. narasimna ayyangar v. official assignee of .....

Umrao Singh Vs. Ram Narain

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1907)ILR29All615

..... the suit was instituted after one year even from the date of the release of the property, it is unnecessary to consider whether section 23 of the limitation act applied and whether this was a case of a continuing wrong. had i to decide that question. i should have considerable difficulty in holding that it was ..... banerji, j.1. the only question in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff respondent is barred by the law of limitation and what is the article of the second schedule to the limitation act which governs the case. the suit was one for compensation and was brought under the following circumstances. deokinandan, defendant, brought a suit ..... contended on behalf of ram narain that the suit was barred by limitation under article 29. the court of first instance held that the article applicable was article 36; that the wrong done to the plaintiff was a continuing wrong within the meaning of section 23 of the limitation act, and that the claim was within time. that court decreed .....

Megh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

..... main section cannot be construed to have conveyed different meanings depending upon whether the case is covered by section 17 or otherwise. section 17 of the act can not have any limitative effect over the operation and applicability of section 11-a so as to restrict or confine it to the cases where urgency clause has not been invoked ..... section 48(1) empowers the state government to withdraw from the acquisition of any land subject to two conditions, namely; (i) the case is not provided under section 36, and (ii) that possession has not been taken. section 11-a and the consequence provided therein i.e. lapse of acquisition proceedings in the event of the award ..... case, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the code of civil procedure-hereinafter called the code, and some decisions thereon. order xxi, rules 35, 36, 95 and 96 of the code prescribe two modes of delivery of possession based upon the nature of the property concerned. the code does not prescribe that in respect .....

Dua Supplies and Traders and a Partnership Firm Through Its Partner La ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1126

..... section 9 either before arbitral proceeding of during arbitral proceedings or after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36 of the act.'16. in view of the said decision of the hon'ble supreme court, it is settled that a party has a right to apply for interim ..... he relies upon the stamp affixed below the name of person signing on behalf of the corporation, whose designation has been mentioned as chief divisional manager, indian oil corporation limited, indian oil bhawan, 65/2, sanjay place, agra, duly constituted attorney.21. according to the dealer, the agreement had not been made at delhi. all the ..... conditions of the said agreement. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court reported in 1992 sc 1514; patel roadways limited v. prasad trading company, for the proposition that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on court where corporation has its principal office, if the entire cause of action has .....

Musammat Bhagwati Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.416

..... a decree-holder auction-purchaser and any other auction-purchaser. i may also refer to article 138 of the second schedule to the limitation act, under which a suit may be brought by an auction-purchaser for recovery of possession within the twelve years from the date of ..... that a purchaser at auction sale may obtain possession by means of a suit is manifest from article 138 of schedule ii of the limitation act, to which i have already referred. that article makes no distinction between the case of a decree-holder purchaser and that of any ..... who is no party to the suit, is interested in the result has never been held a bar to the application of the section.'36. this observation must be read with reference to the facts of the case which was before their lordships, and could never in my ..... v. pargash 6 a.w.n. 45, dhunda v. durga 13 a.w.n. 122, ghulam shabbir v. dwarka prasad 18 a. 36 and baboo luchmee narain v. baboo bhairow pershad 1 agra ii.c.r. 5. mis. ap., it was held that no appeal lies from .....

Munna Lal and ors. Vs. Chunni Lal

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1945All239

..... 1294 fasli (september 1887), and this suit was not brought until 22nd september 1900 the claim of the plaintiff to priority is barred by article 132 of schedule 2, limitation act, 1877.45. it is true that in this case the mortgage of 1874 never ripened into a decree, nevertheless their lordships rejected the claim of the person redeeming ..... mortgagee was not made a party. this decree neither lachman das nor his successor in title took any steps to execute, and under article 179 of schedule 2, limitation act, 1877, it ceased to be operative when three years had elapsed from the date of the decree becoming absolute. it had thus become wholly ineffective long before the ..... him no right or power at all. it would give him not only much less than what the mortgagee had at the time of payment, but indeed absolutely nothing.36. in arriving at his conclusion that the existence of a decree will make a material difference, his lordship considered the difference between the language of section 74 and .....