Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

Limitation SARFAESI

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 18 – Effect of acknowledgment in writing – Documents relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 were introduced at appellate stage, and such documents being balance sheets and settlement offers, the same could be accepted even at the appellate stage.

Sep 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AXIS BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NAREN SHETH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Adverse Possession Limitation

Adverse possession – A party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period.

Aug 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSEPH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Arbitration Limitation

Bank guarantee encashed in 2016 requisite amount stood transferred to Government account that was the end of the matter – This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose – statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating

May 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S B AND T AG — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J. B.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act Limitation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 150(2) – Clarification regarding waiver of limitation – Revenue to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought in the present application and as and when such review application is filed the same can be heard in the open court.

May 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Limitation Property Matters Waqf

Waqf Act, 1995 – Section 52 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Even in regard to a proceeding under the Act be it Section 52 if as on the date the action is taken, the title in the property stood vested with the person in possession by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act then it may not be permissible to ignore the right which had been acquired.

Apr 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABIR ALI KHAN — Appellant Vs. SYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58 and 72 – Suit for declaration – Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Constitution Limitation

Army Act, 1950 – Sections 45 and 122 – Martial Proceedings – Period of limitation for trial – For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., and Bela…

Limitation

Maxim lex fori, the Section provides that rules of limitation provided in a foreign jurisdiction are not applicable – However, the exception to this Rule is provided in Section 11 (2)(a), when the Contract i.e., the right itself expires – Similarly, Section 27 also recognizes the principle of extinguishment of Right to Property being an exception to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Aug 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S BHAGWANDAS B. RAMCHANDANI — Appellant Vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court – National Commission has grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  SUNIL KUMAR MAITY — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw