Back
DEVAN M. DESAI
Food Corporation Of India – Appellant
Versus
Sadhana Transport Co. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the appellant. Though served, none appeared for the respondent/s. Perused the record.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Code’), whereby, a challenge is made against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No.59 of 1996.
3. The facts in brief are as under:
The right to sue accrues when the cause of action arises, and there must be an infringement or a clear threat to infringe the right asserted in the suit.
Court emphasized the impact of pandemic-related extensions on limitation periods, affirming that the suit, filed within the extended timeframe, was not barred by limitation.
The court clarified that the limitation period for a suit can be extended based on ongoing obligations and that time spent in a prior suit in a court without jurisdiction can be excluded from the lim....
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not bar fresh suit on same cause of action provided right of action is not barred by law of limitation.(2) Reje....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), though a statutory body, has its own identity different from the government and therefore, the suit for....
The court ruled that limitation for civil recovery suits cannot be extended by prior administrative recovery actions, and the absence of proper authorization for a plaintiff represents a fatal defect....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
