Supreme Court of India Judgements

46790 Judgements hosted as on 02/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Limitation

Limitation

Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt – The law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them. Appellate Tribunal was empowered to condone the delay upto a period of period of 45 days – Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2020, for enlarging, even the period up to which delay can be condoned.

Sep 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAGUFA AHMED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde,…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 2, 3, 22 and 113 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rules 11 an 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Barred by law of limitation HELD having noticed from the averments in the plaint that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter from the Senior Manager, dated 8.5.2002, and in particular letter dated 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by the respondents vide Advocate’s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005, the plaint filed in February, 2005 would be well within limitation – Appeal allowed.

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Indira…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963, Section 12(2) — Limitation — Computation of — Exclusion of time for required obtaining certified copy — Courts are obliged to compute limitation on basis of endorsement as contained in certified copy — If there is any suspicion of unfair and/ or improper practice, remedy lies in initiating domestic inquiry or may be criminal investigation against concerned staff of Court responsible  for supply  of certified copies.    

Apr 1, 2020 sclaw

2020(1) Indian Civil Cases 635 (S.C.) SUPREME  COURT  OF INDIA Before :– INDIRA BANERJEE & M.R. SHAH, JJ. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24862 of 2019 Decided on…

Limitation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 48(1) and 30 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 111 and 106 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 65, 66 and 67 – Suit for possession – Limitation – HELD Appellants-plaintiffs have claimed possession from the defendant alleging him to be the tenant and that he had not handed over the leased property after determination of the lease – Therefore, such suit would fall within Article 67 of the Limitation Act.

Mar 21, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. — Appellant Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

You missed

Acquittal

A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
Environment Municipal Laws

Environmental Law — Public Trust Doctrine — MCGM’s mandate to develop recreational spaces providing legal foundation for project — Prior condition of water body suggested degradation, not functional lake — Completed park providing substantial public benefit, including green space and recreational amenities utilized by community — Post facto sanction restricting land use to recreational purposes providing legal safeguard — Delay in filing petition undermining challenge — Direction to maintain park in perpetuity for public use, explore alternative water body, and restore other deteriorated water bodies by MCGM.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw