Limitation Act

Pathapati Subba Reddy (D) Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 – Limitation Act

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 –(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to …

Pathapati Subba Reddy (D) Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 – Limitation Act Read More »

KB Lal vs Gyanendra Pratap 2024 INSC 281 – Limitation Act – Sufficient Cause – Delay Condonation

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 – ‘Sufficient Cause’ – The term has to be construed liberally and in order to meet the ends of justice. The reason for giving the term a wide and comprehensive meaning is quite simple. It is to ensure that deserving and meritorious cases are not dismissed solely on the ground …

KB Lal vs Gyanendra Pratap 2024 INSC 281 – Limitation Act – Sufficient Cause – Delay Condonation Read More »

Union Of India vs Jahangir Byramji JeejeeBhoy 2024 INSC 262 – S 5 Limitation Act – Delay Condonation – Length Of Delay

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 – The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not -the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration – Once it is held that a party has lost his right to …

Union Of India vs Jahangir Byramji JeejeeBhoy 2024 INSC 262 – S 5 Limitation Act – Delay Condonation – Length Of Delay Read More »

Purni Devi vs Babu Ram 2024 INSC 259 – S 14 Limitation Act

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14 – The following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service: (1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party; (2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith; (3) The failure of the prior …

Purni Devi vs Babu Ram 2024 INSC 259 – S 14 Limitation Act Read More »

M Radheshyamlal vs V Sandhya 2024 INSC 214 – Adverse Possession

Adverse Possession – When a party claims adverse possession, he must know who the actual owner of the property is – To prove the plea of adverse possession :- (a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner; (b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the …

M Radheshyamlal vs V Sandhya 2024 INSC 214 – Adverse Possession Read More »

Arif Azim Co. Ltd. APTECH Ltd 2024 INSC 155 :: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 73 – S 11(6) Arbitration Act – Appointment Of Arbitrator – Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and …

Arif Azim Co. Ltd. APTECH Ltd 2024 INSC 155 :: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 73 – S 11(6) Arbitration Act – Appointment Of Arbitrator – Limitation Read More »

Mohd Abaad Ali vs Directorate Of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence 2024 INSC 125 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 638 – S 5 Limitation Act- Applicability In Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 – Limitation Act, 1963; Sections 2,3,5 ,29– The benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal – Under Section 378 of the new CrPC read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 …

Mohd Abaad Ali vs Directorate Of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence 2024 INSC 125 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 638 – S 5 Limitation Act- Applicability In Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal Read More »

Mam Chand vs State Of Haryana – S 5 Limitation Act – Sufficient Cause

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 -The word ‘sufficient cause’ should be given liberal construction to see that substantial justice is done but only so long as negligence or inaction or lack of bonafide is not imputed to the parties concerned – Referred to Basawaraj and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81.

Vasantha (D) vs Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (D) 2024 INSC 109 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 326 – Adverse Possession – Limitation Act- S 34 Specific Relief Act – Amendment Of Plaint

Adverse possession – the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blend of fact …

Vasantha (D) vs Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (D) 2024 INSC 109 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 326 – Adverse Possession – Limitation Act- S 34 Specific Relief Act – Amendment Of Plaint Read More »

“Sufficient Cause” In Section 5 Limitation Act – Meaning & Scope

Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that “Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.” Section 5 reads as follows: “Any appeal or any application, other …

“Sufficient Cause” In Section 5 Limitation Act – Meaning & Scope Read More »