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

1976 Supreme(Guj) 44

C.V.RANE, S.H.SHETH
PUNJABHAI PRABHUDAS and CO – Appellant
Versus
SAKINABEN MOHAMABHAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: C.A.SHAH, J.M.PANCHAL, V.P.Shah

S. H. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) HIS Lordship after narrating the facts further observed

( 2 ) TURNING to the last contention as to limitation raised by Mr. Parekh we find that the accident occurred on 29th June 1969 and the claim petition was instituted on 23rd November 1972. The period of limi- tation prescribed for making the claim petition was 60 days under sec. 110 as it was before it was amended-by Act No. 56 of 1969. Prima facie the application was barred by time. However in the instant case the claimants were and are minors. We have therefore considered the effect of secs. 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act 1963 Section 6 will not apply to the instant case because amongst the legal representatives of deceased labourer Manaji Narbhaji are not only the minor claimant but also his widow who is the mother and who has been joined as an opponent to the claim petition. Therefore the case would be governed by sec. 7 of the Limitation Act. It provides as under: where one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an applica- tion for the execution of a decree is under any such disability and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person time will run against the






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