Supreme Court of India Judgements

46695 Judgements hosted as on 17/01/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — The appellant was penalized for deserting his family and living with another woman — The penalty was challenged due to procedural delays and alleged mistakes by his counsel — Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the penalty imposed was justified — The delay was due to the counsel’s mistake, and the penalty was disproportionate since the complainant (his wife) had withdrawn her complaint — The representations were examined and rejected, and the withdrawal of the O.A. was authorized by the appellant — The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits — The delay was sufficiently explained, and the penalty was disproportionate given the withdrawal of the complaint and lack of evidence — The court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay and the need for substantial justice — The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted all consequential benefits.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 577 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOOL CHANDRA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 394 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY LAXMAN BHAWE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS — Appellant Vs. P & S NIRMAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS —…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.P. KHEMKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN LAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

Limitation

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting the appellant’s negligence and inconsistency in statements – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the lower courts and refusing to condone the inordinate delay.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) — Appellant Vs. GYANENDRA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna…

Land Acquisition Limitation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – The court emphasized the importance of the law of limitation, stating that litigation must have an end and cannot be prolonged indefinitely – The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and the discretionary nature of Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the Special Leave Petition due to the petitioners’ negligence and lack of due diligence in pursuing the matter.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) — Respondent ( Before :…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Court emphasized the importance of timely litigation and found no sufficient cause to condone the extensive delay – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to condone the delay – The respondent was entitled to the decree’s benefits without further legal delays.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha…

Limitation

Court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the time spent before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the limitation period, as it was pursued with due diligence and good faith – The appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and the execution application is restored for fresh consideration regarding the limitation period – The Court emphasizes the need to interpret Section 14 of the Limitation Act in a manner that advances justice.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – 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 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S APTECH LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

You missed

Service

Promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, suitability should be judged individually, not comparatively, and officers meeting the minimum criteria cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list

Jan 17, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

A micro or small enterprise does not need to be registered under Section 8 of the MSMED Act to make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw
Maintenance

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the court must assess whether the wife had sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband despite the decree

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 309 — Executive Orders as Recruitment Rules — The court affirms that in the absence of formal rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, executive orders issued by the government can serve as the governing recruitment rules — Specifically, Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008 is recognized as the applicable executive order for the Medical Education Service.

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw