Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

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

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw