Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: limitation act 1963 36 of 1963 section 5 extension of prescribed period in certain cases Sorted by: old Page 1 of about 3,571 results (0.300 seconds)

State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Vs. Y. Venkat Reddy

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD261; 2002(1)ALT391

..... rendered in munna lal parrick v. sarat chandra mukerji (supra) basing on article 181 of the 1908 act, which is corresponding to article 137 of act 36 of 1963 holds the field and enables application of section 5 of limitation act, 1963 to applications under order 34, rule 5 c.p.c.15. sri chandra sekhar, amicus curie also ..... order absolute was a proceeding in execution of the decree and an application for execution to which article 179 of indian limitation act, 1887, which correspondents to article 182 of indian limitation act, 1908 and present article 136 of indian limitation act, 1963. the view according to (1894) ilr 21 calcutta page 818 ajudhia pershad v. baldeo singh, (1894) ilr ..... not applications for execution as there was no decree capable of execution and so article 178 (corresponding to article 181) of the limitation act of 1908 and the present article 137 of act 36 of 1963 alone would apply and this view was expressed in ali ahmad v. naziran bibi, (1902) ilr 24 all. 542. yet another .....

Government Of Maharashtra, (water Resources Department) Vs. M/s Borse ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... affect or takeaway any right to appeal to the supreme court. 43. limitations. 21 (1) the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court. (2) for the purposes of this section and the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963),an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the date referred to ..... adjudicating authority for corporate persons. (1)-(5) * * * (6) notwithstanding anything contained in the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation specified for any suit or application by or against a corporate debtor for which an order of moratorium has ..... the order of the court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963),for the commencement of the proceedings (including arbitration) with respect to the dispute so submitted.17. so far as the limitation act is concerned, sections 5 and 29(2) read as follows: 5. extension of .....

Rethinasamy Vs. Komalavalli and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1982)2MLJ406

..... the new limitation act (xxxvi of 1963), a central legislation on a concurrent subject has laid down generally the law relating to limitation and that section 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963, however takes note of special or local laws, which might prescribe special periods of limitation not found in the schedule to the limitation act. the learned ..... ( : (1969)iillj651sc , we distinguish the above decision also as not applicable.36. in the decision in town municipal council v. labour court : (1969)iillj651sc , the supreme court has laid down that article 137 of the limitation act, 1963, governs only applications presented to courts under the civil and criminal procedure code, that the use ..... as follows:(italics by us.)17. but we find a change in the preamble to the new limitation act (xxxvi of 1963) which reads as follows:an act to consolidate and amend the law fox the limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith.18. the new preamble refers to proceedings .....

Rathinasamy Vs. Komalavalli and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1983Mad45

..... judge has expressed the view that the new limitation act 36 of 1963, a central legislation on a concurrent subject has laid down generally the law relating to limitation and that section 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963 however takes note of special or local laws, which might prescribe special periods of limitations not found in the schedule to the limitation act. the learned judge is of the opinion that ..... ) industrial disputes and for other purposes, as the preamble to that act goes.36. learned counsel for the respondents has cited the decision in j. fernandez v. a. k. umma, , wherein the full bench of the kerala high court has held that the limitation act, 1963, applies only to courts and prescribes periods of limitation in respect of suits, appeals and applications filed in court, that .....

Jagannath Dudadhar Vs. the Sale Tax Officer and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(106)DRJ831; (2009)19VST151(Delhi)

..... under sections 43, 45, 46 and 47, the provisions of sections 4 and 12 of the limitation act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, so far as may be, apply.(3) in computing the period of limitation prescribed by or under any provision of this act, or the rules made thereunder, other than sections 43, 45, 46 and 47, any ..... so far as the directions required to be issued by the special court (trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) act 1992 and in that regard made the following observations:the limitation act, 1963 is applicable only in relation to certain applications and not all application despite the fact that the words 'other proceedings' were ..... civil procedure or code of criminal procedure is applicable; the limitation act , 1963 per se may not be applied to the proceedings before it. even in relation to certain civil proceedings, the limitation act may not have any application. as for example, there is no bar of limitation for initiation of a final decree proceedings or to invoke .....

Rajakumaragouda and ors. Vs. Sharanagouda

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2009KAR3865

..... , the contention that a decree for specific performance is in the nature of preliminary decree is without any substance.11. section 3 of the limitation act, 1963 deals with bar of limitation. it categorically states that subject to the provisions contained under section 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and an application made after ..... procedure, 1908. therefore, if an application for execution of the decree is filed beyond time, the question of filing an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condoning the delay would not arise.12. in the instant case, as set out above, the plaintiff suit was. decreed as prayed for with costs. ..... which execution is sought, takes place. however, if there is any delay in filing such application, section 5 of the limitation act is not applicable because though section 5 of the limitation act provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases, it categorically excludes an application under any of the provisions of order 21 .....

Dr. Zubida Begum and Others Vs. Indian Bank Rep by Its Manager Guidy B ...

Court : Chennai

..... parties will be computed keeping in view the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the limitation act, 1963. such proceedings will attract section 29(2) of the limitation act and consequently section 5 of the limitation act would also be applicable to such proceedings. appellate authority will have ample jurisdiction to consider the ..... receipt of the order passed by the tribunal. the sarfaesi act does not contain an express provision either extending the provisions of the limitation act or its exclusion. 18. the limitation act, 1963 was enacted in supersession of the limitation act, 1908. the provisions of limitation act would apply to all civil proceedings and certain criminal proceedings ..... ), nityananda m. joshi v. life insurance corporation of india (1970) 1 scr 36 = (air 1970 sc 209) and sushila devi v. ramanandan prasad (1976) 2 scr 945 = (air 1976 sc 177) that the provisions of the limitation act, 1963 apply only to proceedings in courts and not to appeals or applications before bodies .....

***** Vs. Sarita and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... 29.1.2008 whereas certified copy of the order has been applied by the appellant on 19.12.2008. needless to mention that as per article 116 of the limitation act, 1963 [for short the act ]., limitation to file appeal in this court against the judgment and decree of the appellate court is 90 days. since, the appeal is filed before this court under section ..... .justice rakesh kumar jain ***** present: mr.b.k.bagri, advocate, for the appellant. ***** rakesh kumar jain, j. (oral) this applicant/appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the limitation act bearing cm no.10752-c-2011 for condonation of delay of 309 days in filing of the appeal. applicant filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction which has been dismissed ..... refiling the appeal. hence, the said application is also dismissed. consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (rakesh kumar jain) 06.05.2014 judge vivek pahwa vivek 2014.05.08 14:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document .....

Hemchand M. Singhania Vs. Shakuntala S. Tiwari (Smt.)

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1987(2)BomCR428

..... the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in article 137 of the limitation act, 1963 compared with article 181 of the 1908 limitation act shows that applications contemplated under article 137 are not applications confined to the code of civil procedure. in the 1908 limitation act there was no division between the applications in specified cases and other application as in the ..... by the two judge bench of this court in athani municipal council case : (1969)iillj651sc (supra) and hold that article 137 of the 1963 limitation act is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the code of civil procedure....''36. shri mahendra shah, the learned counsel, therefore, rightly submit that this authority overrules the earlier ratios making it clear covering applications under article .....

Kottaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1997KAR474

..... adverse possession has to be considered in the light of the burden placed on the purchaser of the granted land under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the act. secondly, the plea of adverse possession urged for the first time before the second respondent is also liable to be rejected on the ground that crucial facts, which ..... in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no enquiry held by the third respondent as required under section 33 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964. it is not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent denied an opportunity to the petitioner to place necessary material before him. in view of ..... quashed as the said orders came to be passed without there being any enquiry held by the third respondent as required under section 33 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964. he further submitted that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 have failed to consider that the petitioner .....