Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held the respondent firm’s registration was proved, but dismissed the recovery suit as time-barred. Section 14 did not save limitation.
The Supreme Court held that limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act runs from disposal of a Section 33 request, not the original award.
Supreme Court held that a Section 62 IBC appeal not cured within 28 days of defect notification cannot have re-filing delay condoned and is time-barred.
Where this Court in Ram Avtar settled the law and the Union of India, by policy and subsequent order, accepted arrears of disability pension payable from specified cut-off dates, claims for arrears could not be curtailed to three years by invoking limitation, delay or laches; once disability pension is found due it must be paid from the date it became due and restricting arrears to three years would unlawfully deprive beneficiaries and infringe Article 300A.
Source excerpt
The executing Court erred in dismissing the execution petition; because both appellants in the first appeal had died prior to the appeal being heard and their legal heirs had not been brought on record, the first appellate Court's judgment of 20.10.2010 was a nullity and the trial Court decree of 14.08.2006 revived and is liable to be executed; execution proceedings are restored to be decided in accordance with law.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to treat the written statement filed on 07.01.2022 in the light of this Court's orders excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes; further, non-filing of the written statement did not extinguish the defendant's right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. The impugned judgment and decree as against Defendant No.1 were set aside and the matter was remanded for the trial court to permit the appellant to file its written statement subject to payment of costs and to allow cross-examination.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed: the High Court erred in modifying the Trial Court decree without any cross-appeal; the respondent failed to prove a valid oral gift/Hiba to 10 acres for want of contemporaneous evidence of delivery and continuous possession and failed to satisfactorily prove status as daughter under Section 50; revenue records and registered sale deeds and long delay occasion constructive notice and the suit filed on 28.10.2013 is barred by limitation; accordingly the impugned judgments are set aside and the respondent's suit dismissed.
Source excerpt
The sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was found to be void ab initio on the concurrent findings (plaintiff had not executed it and alleged consideration was not proved); therefore the suit for possession based on title was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was filed within the 12-year period; consequently the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Because the tenant neither deposited or paid the arrears nor filed the application for determination of rent within the 30‑day period prescribed by s.7(1) and the first part of s.7(2), those requirements are mandatory (the word 'shall') and the proviso to s.7(2) permitting one extension up to two months applies only to payment of the amount after judicial determination; the Limitation Act cannot be used to extend a shorter period prescribed by the WBPT Act, therefore the tenant could not avail protection against eviction and the courts below were correct to refuse condonation under s.5 Limita…
Source excerpt
The Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act and time-barred claims may be referred to and settled by conciliation (a settlement being enforceable as an award); however, the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) because Section 18(3) and the overriding provisions of the MSMED Act render the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (including Section 43) applicable to such arbitrations, and any extension of limitation by disclosure under Section 22 must be determined case-by-case.
Source excerpt
Explore more
