SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 535

ASHOK BHAN, A.K.MATHUR
V. M. Salgaocar And Bros. – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Trustees Of Port Of Mormugao – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the time limitation and pre-condition notice requirement under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 for suits against port authorities? Whether Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is constitutionally valid and rational in prescribing a shorter six-month limitation period with one-month notice? How to treat a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in relation to the subsequent challenge to limitation and notice requirements?

What is the time limitation and pre-condition notice requirement under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 for suits against port authorities?

Whether Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is constitutionally valid and rational in prescribing a shorter six-month limitation period with one-month notice?

How to treat a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in relation to the subsequent challenge to limitation and notice requirements?


Judgment

Bhan, J.—These appeals by grant of leave are directed against the common judgment and order of affirmation passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in First Appeal No. 27 of 1992 and appeal from order No. 69 of 1991. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) was dismissed by the District Judge, South Goa, Mormugao by judgment dated 30th December, 1991 on the ground that the same was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 120 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and that the suit was barred by limitation. This judgment was challenged in First Appeal No. 27 of 1992. Prior to that District Judge vide order dated 30th April, 1991, had come to the conclusion that Section 120 of the Act was applicable to the present case. Against this order the appellant had filed an appeal from order 69 of 1991. The two appeals having arisen from the same suit were heard together and disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment. We propose to do the same.

2. We would referring to the facts necessary to dispose of the appeals as found by the High Court on which there is no dispute between the counsel














































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top