Limitation Act, 1963

Supreme Court settles the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 in cases under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972: M/S Bhagwandas B . Ramchandani vs. British Airways (29 July 2022)

/ Carriage by Air Act, 1972, Carriage by Air Act, 1972 with Rule 30, International Conventions, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation in Air Carriage: Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani vs. British Airways (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the period specified in Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. CASE TYPE: Carriage by Air/Commercial Law Case Name: M/S Bhagwandas B . Ramchandani vs. British […]

Supreme Court settles the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 in cases under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972: M/S Bhagwandas B . Ramchandani vs. British Airways (29 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for counterclaims in banking disputes: Topline Shoes vs. Punjab National Bank (2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Banking Disputes, Banking Law, Debt Recovery, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 22, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for counterclaims in banking disputes: Topline Shoes vs. Punjab National Bank (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the applicable limitation period for a counterclaim against a bank regarding funds withheld from a current account. CASE TYPE: Banking/Debt Recovery Case Name: Topline Shoes Limited & Another vs. Punjab National Bank Judgment Date: July 20,

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for counterclaims in banking disputes: Topline Shoes vs. Punjab National Bank (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Land Dispute: State of Telangana vs. B. Rangaswamy (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Section 80, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 58

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Land Dispute: State of Telangana vs. B. Rangaswamy (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Dispute over land ownership and identity based on survey numbers. CASE TYPE: Civil Land Dispute Case Name: The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana & Anr. vs. B. Rangaswamy (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Land Dispute: State of Telangana vs. B. Rangaswamy (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bona Fide Purchaser Rights, Dismisses Suit Based on Collusive Decree: Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (2022) INSC 500

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Bona Fide Purchaser, Civil Law, Collusive Decree, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Bona Fide Purchaser Rights, Dismisses Suit Based on Collusive Decree: Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (2022) INSC 500 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, filed after the limitation period, is maintainable when a prior collusive decree is used as the basis for the claim. Also, whether a bona

Supreme Court Upholds Bona Fide Purchaser Rights, Dismisses Suit Based on Collusive Decree: Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (2022) INSC 500 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 25(2)(b), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(6), Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) extends the limitation period for a corporate debtor to initiate arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration, Insolvency Case Name: New Delhi Municipal Council

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423 Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, M.R. Shah, Stale Claims, Time-barred claims

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when the arbitration clause is invoked after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Vishram Varu & Co.

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Karta’s Power to Gift Joint Family Property: K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (2022)

/ Alienation of Property, Hindu Law, Joint Family Property, Judges, Krishna Murari, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 109, Pious Purpose, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Karta’s Power to Gift Joint Family Property: K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Karta (manager) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) can gift ancestral property to a non-coparcener out of love and affection. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Rights Case Name: K.C. Laxmana vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Karta’s Power to Gift Joint Family Property: K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Surya Kant

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189 Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 189 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Surya Kant, J. Can a one-time settlement (OTS) offer or

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189 Read Post »

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Condonation of Delay, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing objections to an arbitration award can be condoned by the court, and whether the objections were dismissed without proper consideration of the merits of the case, including limitation issues. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in IBC cases: SVG Fashions vs. Ritu Goyal (29 March 2022)

/ Hemant Gupta, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court on Limitation under IBC: SVG Fashions vs. Ritu Goyal (2022) Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 234 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. (authored the judgment) Can a letter acknowledging a debt, along with dishonored cheques, revive a time-barred claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)? The

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in IBC cases: SVG Fashions vs. Ritu Goyal (29 March 2022) Read Post »

Limitation in Property Disputes: Supreme Court Divided on Plaint Rejection in Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok (28 March 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XIV Rule 2, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 17, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Addresses Limitation in Property Dispute: Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok (2022) Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2022 The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding a property dispute where the main issue was whether the suit was filed within the time limit set by law. The case, *Saranpal Kaur

Limitation in Property Disputes: Supreme Court Divided on Plaint Rejection in Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok (28 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for cognizance in criminal cases: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni (2022)

/ Cognizance, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 468, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Judges, Limitation, Offences Against Property, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Cognizance in Criminal Cases: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the relevant date for calculating the limitation period under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni & Ors. Judgment Date: 28 February 2022 Date of the Judgment: 28

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for cognizance in criminal cases: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top