Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: limitation act 1963 36 of 1963 section 5 extension of prescribed period in certain cases Court: rajasthan Page 1 of about 53 results (0.421 seconds)

Mangalji Chotelal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1971Raj167

..... 31(2) of the constitution should have decreed the plaintiff's suit for damages. (2) the suit was not barred by limitation and the lower court was in error in holding that article 36 of the indian limitation act was applicable to it. on the other hand it is contended that the suit is governed by article 120 or article 96 of ..... he could be found entitled to recover the same as interest by way of damages. on the question of limitation, the court held that the suit was governed by article 36 of the indian limitation act, 1908 and thus it was barred by limitation having been filed after 38 months of the accrual of the cause of action. the court further held that ..... quite distinguishable on facts.15. learned additional advocate general on the other hand, urges that either article 2 or 36 of the indian limitation act is applicable to the facts of the case. article 2 applies to those cases where an act is done or omitted to be done in pursuance of an enactment in force for the time being. this .....

N.L.P. Organics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2007Raj10; RLW2007(2)Raj865

..... the amount due and all the courts could have done was to investigate the respondent's claim. section 32(6) of the act of 1951 clearly limits the jurisdiction of the court to 'investigate' and not to 'determine' the amount. the court can only investigate the correctness of ..... could not have asked for the second part of the second relief, namely, that up to 1-10-2000 an amount of rs. 1,36,04,991/- (one crore, thirty six lacs four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-one rupees only) along with interest should be ordered to ..... order dated 23-11-2004, the learned judge allowed the said application and directed the appellant to pay a sum of rs. 1,36,04,991/- to the respondent along with an interest rate of 15% per annum. the said amount was to be paid within a ..... should be sold.' hence, the learned judge is not entitled to direct that 'the corporation is entitled to receive rs. 1,36,04,991/- from the respondents'. such a direction can be passed in a money recovery suit, but not in an application filed under .....

Pooranchand and ors. Vs. Shriram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1963Raj245

..... been more vehemently urged by learned counsel for the appellants is, that the respondents' application for obtaining the final decree was covered by article 181, indian limitation act, that under the said article, the prescribed period of three years commenced from the date when the right to apply accrued, that the right to apply ..... the plaintiff on 22nd december, 1941. the judgment-debtor thenmade an application under order 9, rule 9 for the restoration of the proceedings under section 36, money-lenders act. this application was, also dismissed on 1st june, 1942. the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal to the high court at calcutta from the decision dismissing ..... to include the appeal from the order dismissing the application under order 9, rule 9, civil procedure code, made in connection with the proceedings under section 36, money-lenders act. this argument was repelled with the observations that it was highly far-fetched one and that however broadly it may be construed, it cannot be .....

Ganpat Mal Dhariwal Vs. Sukhraj and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2001Raj372; 2002(1)WLC299; 2001(4)WLN276

..... the former co-sharer to rectified the municipal record immediately after he got the information and without any objection from the latter negative the plea of adverse possession. (b) limitation act (1908) art. 144 - no adverse possession against cosharer in absence of evidence of open assertion of a hostile title coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of ..... down by the hon'ble supreme court in 'javer chand & ors. vs. pukhraj surana (supra) would be of no assistance. therefore, it renders no help to the defendants.(36). thus, in the ultimate analysis this court feels that the finding of the trial court on issue no. 6 is vitiated and is, consequently, liable to be set aside. ..... once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross examination of their witnesses, sec. 36 comes into operation. once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid it is not open either to the trial court itself or to a court of .....

Ram Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj2366; 2004(5)WLC181

..... as it may consider reasonable for conducting impartial and lawful elections.115. prior to commencement of the act of 2001, it is common ground between the parties, that no lime limit for the life of the management committee under the act of 1965 was prescribed by parent statute and it was left to be determined by the bye ..... issued applicable to all the marketing societies through out the rajasthan whose directors have completed the term of three years, exempting the applicability of provision of section 36(1) and 36 (6) and rule 38(2) and 38(4) to strengthen the democratic set up of the cooperative societies. the court held that petitioner cannot insist ..... is made by the state legislature within the field reserved for its legislative authority ordinarily is, has held the sub-section (1b) of section 36 of the co-operative societies act, 1965 to be violative of article 213. however, requirement of reserving for president's consideration and receiving his assent as necessary pre-condition for .....

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Nagar Palika and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1974WLN(UC)267

..... was required to file the suit within 3 years from the date the octroi duty became payable by the state of rajasthan. suit no. 8/67 (36/68) relates to the period between 1-4-64 and 31-3-65 and ..... that suit no. 3/67 (36/68) was barred by time at least to the extent of the amount of octroi duty on the quantity of the liquor brought within the municipal area of jhalawar between 1.4.64 to 11.4.64 it is conceded that the suit is governed by article 113 of the limitation act, 1?63 and the plaintiff ..... government notification. the manner of collecting such duty has to be in accordance with the provisions of the act and rules made by the state government. thus it is bringing in of the goods and animals for consumption, use or sale within the municipal limits which attracts the incidence of octroi duty. in other words, it is the person who brings the .....

Jaiwant Rao and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1961Raj250

..... local self government/a/55 dated 1st march, 1858 published in rajasthan gazette part 6 (ka) dated 24th april, 1958, under section 7(1) of the act declaring its intention to extend the limits of the kotah town municipality as noted below:'in north -- including all lands of rangpur village and that of rangpur road. in west -- parallel to the ..... was also pleaded that the petitioners had no personal interest and had therefore, no locus standi to challenge the validity of the elections of non-petitioners nos. 4 to 36 and that the petitioners had come to this court with delay and they were, therefore, not entitled to any relief.15. mr. tyagi for the petitioners contended that the ..... this view of the matter, we think the addition of rangbari and umedganj to wards nos. 26 arid, 31 may have affected the holding of elections from those wards only.36. the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the observations of modi, j., ir ilr (1959) 9 raj 1084 : (air 1960 raj 152) (supra) in support .....

Government of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Sangram Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1962Raj43

..... call for consideration and decision in this appeal. these are: 1. whether in spite of the repeal of the bikaner state limitation act by the rajasthan limitation act (adaptation) ordinance, article 165 of the bikaner state limitation act will continue to govern an application for the enforcement of a decree passed by the former bikaner high court? 2. whether ..... karan singh's case beyond the demand of the situation there. 36. in the present instance, there is a decree passed by the bikaner high court in its original jurisdiction to which article 165 of the bikaner limitation act applied, which provided a special period of limitation for the enforcement of such a decree. such a decree was ..... there is a gap of 36 days. this period is no doubt short but cannot be said to be so inadequate that i may be persuaded to hold that the same principles should apply in interpreting this law as i have adopted in construing, the rajasthan ordinance and the bikaner limitation act should continue to govern the .....

Tarun Mehta and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

..... the maximum period of practice to six years i.e. two terms of three years each , the court observed:13. the state government is a functionary of limited power under the scheme of the act. the exercise of its powers is conditioned by the statutory provision. it is not a free agent either in relation to the appointment or as regards the ..... under the said certificate of authorisation.24. it is to be noticed that as per sub-section (2) of section 5 as it was existing before the amendment introduced by act 36 of 1999 w.e.f. 17.12.99 substituting the word 'shall' employed therein by word 'may' , the entitlement of a person appointed as a notary public once registered ..... even if the power vested in the state government in the matter of renewal of the certificate of authorisation as per sub-section (2) of section 5 as substituted by act 36 of 99 w.e.f. 17.12.99 is taken to be discretionary, the discretion vested has to be exercised judicially and for the said purpose, the circumstances enumerated .....

The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)344

..... not 3 years but 6 years, section 76(1)(b) may be quoted;76 limitation - (1) notwithstanding anything contained in the limitation act 1963, (central act 36 of 1963), but subject to the specific provisions made in this act, the period of limitation in the case of a dispute referred to the registrar under section 75, shall-(a) xxxxxxx(b) ..... while the present dispute is between two cooperative societies within the meaning of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 75. to such a dispute, limitation act, 1963, has been made specifically applicable by sub-section (2) of section 76. therefore, a period of six years was not available to the petitioners.5. the ..... cooperative tribunal, jaipur it was urged before the said tribunal that the claim of the petitioner bikaner bank was time barred under article 26 of the limitation act, 1963. the learned tribunal upheld the contention, accepted the appeal and set aside the decision of the deputy registrar. aggrieved of the judgment of the learned tribunal .....