SEN, MODI, JOSHI
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan – Respondent
2. The Division Bench before which the appeal came up for hearing felt that the point of limitation was one of frequent occurrence and, therefore, there was need for an authoritative decision. It noticed a diversity of opinion between the different High Courts on the question. It referred to two decisions of this Court in Bhawani Shanker vs. The State of Rajasthan (1) and Tej Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (2) which, the Division Bench felt, expressed views which were irreconcilable and, therefore, it was desired that the point should be settled by a larger Bench.
3. The reference being on a point of law, there is no necessity of going into the facts in detail. The material facts briefly are these. By a contract in writing dated 912-1957 the State Government of Rajasthan in the Irrigation Depar
(7) Badarwada Bhima Subbaraju vs. Village Panchayat of Gundugolanu (AIR 1965 AP 186)
(17) Ganron Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 1433)
(1) Bhawani Shanker vs. The State of Rajasthan (AIR 1970 Raj. 268)
(6) Zila Parishad (District Board) vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (AIR 1965 All. 590 FB)
(16) ML. Dalmiya & Co vs. Union of India (AIR 1963 Cal. 277)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.