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 …
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 :: [2024] 4 S.C.R 37 – S 14 Limitation Act Read More »
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 »
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 …
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 …
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.
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 …
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 »
In M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(7) SCC 58, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act applies only to courts and not to the tribunals. Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. (2008) 7 SCC 169. Ganesan vs Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board AIR 2019 SC 2343 :: 2019 (2) …
Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Quasi Judicial Authorities Or Tribunals Read More »
N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] : The object of fixing time limit for initiation of legal proceedings is not meant to destroy the rights of any party but to fix a life span for legal remedies in public interest and that the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally. Collector Land Acquisition, …
S 5 Limitation Act – Liberal Approach In Condonation Of Delay Read More »