Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: limitation act 1963 36 of 1963 section 5 extension of prescribed period in certain cases Page 5 of about 3,503 results (0.132 seconds)

H V Gopal Vs. The Bangalore Souhardha Central

Court : Karnataka

..... measures under sub-section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963).6.2. sections 20 and 24 of the rddb act: 20.appeal to the appellate tribunal. (1) save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, ..... as the recovery of debts and - 9 - nc:2024. khc:25805 wp no.21349 of 2022 bankruptcy act,1993 (for short the rdb act ). section 24 of the rdb reads as under:- section 24 of the rdb act, 1993: limitation. the provisions of the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a tribunal. 10.4 as ..... as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal. *** 24.limitation. the provisions of the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a tribunal.6.3. section 29 of the .....

Ambica Mills Ltd., No. 2, Ahmedabad Vs. Second Labour Court [Master (D ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [1968(16)FLR46]; (1967)IILLJ800Guj

..... was challenged by the employer. the contention of sri vyas is that by the amendment of act 36 of 1964, the legislature has amended the provisions of s. 33c so as to provide for the limitation for obtaining a relief under sub-section (2) of s. 33c. according to sri ..... is whether by virtue of this addition the interpretation which was put upon by the supreme court in the case of central bank of india [1963 - ii l.l.j. 89] (vide supra) on s. 33c(2) has been in any way affected. to invoke the provision of ..... of central bank of india, ltd. v. rajagopalan [1963 - ii l.l.j. 89] it was held by the supreme court that for the remedy under sub-section (2) of s. 33c of the act no limitation was provided in the act. it was further held that provisions of s. 33c ..... stood before its amendment were considered and interpreted by the supreme court in the case of central bank of india, ltd. v. rajagopalan [1963 - ii l.l.j. 89] (vide supra), wherein the following observations have been made at pp. 95-96 : '... when .....

Gaibandha Loan Office Ltd. Vs. Mt. Saiyadunnessa Khatun W/O Mahammad A ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1943Cal114

..... accordingly do not see any substance in the cross objections.6. the period of limitation for suits brought under section 36, public demands recovery act, is provided for in that section itself. so no question of the applicability of article 12, limitation act, arises. section 36 of the act saya that such a suit must be filed within a year of the date of ..... person who could be made the defendant would be the e certificate-holder, there being no other person at that stage to oppose that suit.8. section 36 of act 3 of 1913 does not state who are to be the defendants in a suit brought under it. the suit contemplated therein follows in point of time, i ..... the bank has filed the appeal wherein it challenges the finding of the learned subordinate judge on the question of limitation and the finding on the question of the service of the notice issued under section 7 of the act on the plaintiff other than plaintiff 2. the plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of cross objections, wherein they challenged .....

p.radha Bai Vs. p.ashok Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... of judicature at andhra pradesh at hyderabad.2. an interesting question of law arises in this batch of petitions, concerning the applicability of section 17 of the limitation act, 1963 [ limitation act ]. for condonation of a delay caused on the account of alleged fraud played on the objector (party challenging the award) beyond the period 1 prescribed under ..... prescribed under section 34(3) to challenge the award and the commencement of the enforcement period under section 36 to execute the award.35. if section 17 of the limitation act were to be applied to determining the limitation period under section 34(3), it would have the following consequences (a) in section 34(3), the ..... a party can challenge an award even after the 120 day period.40. second, extending section 17 of limitation act to section 34 would do violence to the scheme of the arbitration act. as discussed above, section 36 enables a party to apply for enforcement of award when the period for challenging an award under s.34 .....

Usery Vs. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of the secretary of labor [on a 415 transition period claim] as if the claim had been filed pursuant to part c." in short, we conclude that the act does not itself limit the evidence with which an operator may rebut the page 428 u. s. 37 411(c)(4) presumption. accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court declaring ..... to have the disease." s.rep. no. 92-743, supra at 12. [ footnote 35 ] id. at 9-16; h.r.rep. no. 92-460, pp. 10 (1971). [ footnote 36 ] section 413(b) directs additionally that, "[i]n determining the validity of claims under this part, all relevant evidence shall be considered, including, where relevant, medical tests such as blood ..... presumption of constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way. see, e.g., ferguson v. skrupa, 372 u. s. 726 (1963); williamson v. lee optical co., 348 u. s. 483 , 348 u. s. 487 -488 (1955). and this court long ago .....

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 .....

State Vs. Fatehchand

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 1955CriLJ959

..... and that the proviso to section 17(4) shows a different intention. he contends that proviso to clause 4 of section 17, essential supplies (temporary powers) act of 1946, lays the limit to which the past transactions are protected and because the intention is restricted to what has been said in the proviso, section 6 cannot be invoked any more ..... of the accused support that view. the learned advocate-general and the learned government advocate, relying upon - 'hubbalal v. state of madhya bharat' air 1955 madh-b 36 (c), contend that it applies to madhya bharat as well.9. the contention put forward by the learned counsel of the accused is that by part b state laws ..... in terms to part b states.46. the reasoning adopted by dixit j. in air 1955 madh-b 36 (c), that in general clauses act 1897 there is no territorial extent clause and hence it is bound to follow every other central act if the same is extended to any territory under the constitution, is highly convenient, plausible and attractive; .....

M/S Madras Petrochem Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bifr and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... repeal of . the black's law dictionary sets forth the following meaning for derogation : derogation. the partial repeal or abrogation of a law by a later act that limits its scope or impairs its utility and force. it is clear that sub-section (1) contains a non obstante clause, which gives the overriding effect to the ..... to, and not in derogation of, the industrial finance corporation act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the state financial corporations act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the unit trust of india act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the industrial reconstruction bank of india act, 1984 (62 of 1984), the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and the small industries development ..... in india 2011-2012 for the year ended 30.6.2012 submitted by the reserve bank of india to the central government in terms of section 36(2) of the banking regulation act, 1949. in table iv.14 the report provides statistics regarding trends in non-performing assets bank-wise, group-wise. as per the said table .....

Kosana Ranganayakamma Vs. Pasupulati Subbamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1967AP208; 1967CriLJ849

..... this case.' (11) in anjanabai v. yeshwantrao, : air1961bom154 (fb), the same question was considered with respect to s. 29 of the old limitation act (central act 9 of 1908) which is substantially similar to s. 29 of the new act (central act 36 of 1963) so far as portion (a) is concerned. the full bench of the bombay high court extracted the following passage from the decision ..... petitioner, contends that under section 29 of the new limitation act (central act 36 of 1963), the provisions under s. 5 of the old act are available to the complainant. but, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that s. 29 of the new act does not apply to the present case.(7) section 29 of the limitation act (central act 36 of 1963) runs as follows:'section 29 . .. (a) where any .....

Pathumma Beevi and ors. Vs. Rajakrishna Menon and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1975Ker91

..... arguments, the following were relied on as evidencing either an acknowledgment under section 18, or a part payment under section 19 of the limitation act 1963 (sections 19 and 20 respectively of the earlier act of 1908), for saving limitation; namely, ext. b-38 dated 3-11-1961 (a statement by the deceased): a-l dated 9-4-1962 (trust-deed); ..... judge of the calcutta high court without much discussion held that a payment by one co-heir cannot bind the others or save limitation against them. this was followed in jogesh chandra v. monindra narain chakravarty, 36 cal wn 487 = (air 1932 cal 620). but that was a case of two joint debtors, (directly covered by section 21 ..... liable with her daughters for a debt, a payment by the widow did not save limitation against the debtors. this was approved of in 36 cai wn 487 = (air 1932 cal 620). reliance was placed for this view upon section 21 (2), limitation act, which according to the learned judges engrafted an exception in cases of joint debtors upon .....