Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

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.…

C P C Limitation

Application for condonation of delay, that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondents – High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously – Reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane – Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity – Delay defeats equity – Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO — Appellant Vs. REDDY SRIDEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Limitation

Second Appeal – Specific performance of the contract – Non service of notice due to change of address – While dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in respect of matters pending at the appellate stage, has clearly observed that advocates usually inform the litigants who are to be in contact. Sometimes, they assure their clients that will give information to them as and when matter would be ripe for hearing – High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal solely on the ground of limitation.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. YASHWANTRAO BHASKARRAO DESHMUKH — Appellant Vs. RAGHUNATH KISAN SAINDANE — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Limitation

Suit for redemption – Limitation – Suit for redemption can be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption.- Advance of loan and return thereof are part of the same document which creates a relationship of debtor and creditor – Thus, it would be covered by proviso in Section 58(c) of the Act – Order of First Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the defendants and dismissing the suit for redemption is not sustainable in law, so as the order passed by the High Court – Appeal allowed.

Aug 15, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA KHALATE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. NANA DINKAR YADAV (TANPURA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S.…

Limitation

Plaintiff was pursuing writ petition bona fidely–If the period taken for pursuing the remedy is excluded, the suit must be held to have been filed within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act–Interest on Delayed payments to small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, S 4–Limitation Act, 1963, S 14.   

Jun 13, 2021 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 771 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7315 of 2008…

Limitation

For appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER — Appellant Vs. M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent (…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
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
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
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw