Limitation Act, 1963

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao (2020)

/ Agreement to Sell, Contract Law, Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963, Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963, Arun Mishra, Contract Law, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was barred by limitation. CASE TYPE: Civil (Specific Performance) Case Name: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam & another vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao Judgment Date: 06 February 2020 […]

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Interest on Delayed Payments: Shanti Conductors vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order VII Rule 6, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 19, Navin Sinha, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Interest on Delayed Payments: Shanti Conductors vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2019) Date of the Judgment: December 18, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1234 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can a suit for interest on delayed payments be sustained if filed beyond the

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Interest on Delayed Payments: Shanti Conductors vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal Due to Delay in University of Delhi vs. Union of India (17 December 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Condonation of Delay, Delhi University Act, 1922, Delhi University Act, 1922 with Section 21, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal Due to Delay in University of Delhi vs. Union of India LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing an appeal due to an inordinate delay in filing, despite the appellant claiming public interest. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: University of Delhi vs. Union of

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal Due to Delay in University of Delhi vs. Union of India (17 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 96(2), Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is maintainable after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the timing of filing a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code: Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. (19 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order VI Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3(2)(b)(ii), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Order VIII, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Supreme Court Clarifies Counterclaim Filing Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 regarding the timing of filing a counterclaim. CASE TYPE: Civil Procedure Case Name: Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. Judgment Date: 19 November 2019 Introduction Date

Supreme Court clarifies the timing of filing a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code: Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. (19 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revisions under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with Section 48, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act in Himachal Pradesh VAT Revisions LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can condone delays in filing revisions under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper &

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revisions under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Timelines for Rent Arrears Under West Bengal Tenancy Act: Bijay Kumar Singh vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya (2019)

/ Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Limitation Act, 1963, Rent Arrears, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 with Section 7

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Timelines for Rent Arrears Under West Bengal Tenancy Act: Bijay Kumar Singh vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications for determination of rent arrears under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. CASE TYPE: Tenancy Law Case Name: Bijay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Timelines for Rent Arrears Under West Bengal Tenancy Act: Bijay Kumar Singh vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Limitation for Revocation of Letters of Administration: Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 228, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 263, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 276, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, S. Ravindra Bhat, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Sets Limitation for Revocation of Letters of Administration: Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the limitation period for filing an application for revocation of letters of administration. CASE TYPE: Succession Law Case Name: Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe [Judgment Date]: October 4, 2019

Supreme Court Sets Limitation for Revocation of Letters of Administration: Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when re-presenting a petition in the

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 62, R. F. Nariman, Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Limitation Act to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Sagar Sharma & Anr. vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: September 30, 2019

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Krishnamurthy Setlur vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty (26 September 2019)

/ Adverse Possession, Aniruddha Bose, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Adverse Possession, Property Disputes, Property Law

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Claim: Krishnamurthy Setlur vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty (2019) Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 949 Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J. Can a person who is not the original owner of a property claim ownership through adverse possession? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Krishnamurthy Setlur vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty (26 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Winding Up Order Due to Limitation: Jignesh Shah vs. Union of India (25 September 2019)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 433, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 434, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, R. Subhash Reddy, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Sets Aside Winding Up Order Due to Limitation: Jignesh Shah vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a winding-up petition filed under the Companies Act, 1956, which is time-barred, can be revived as a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Jignesh Shah

Supreme Court Sets Aside Winding Up Order Due to Limitation: Jignesh Shah vs. Union of India (25 September 2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top