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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 891

C.SHIVAPPA, K.NATARAJAN
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Madras – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Sakuntala Ganapathy Rao proprietor, Modern Home Agencies – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.S. Raghavan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Judgment :

C. Shivappa, J.

1. The petitioner herein, namely, The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, has challenged the order passed in O.P. No. 274 of 1991 dated 19. 1991. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judge has no jurisdiction to interfere with the case of the consent award modifying the interest portion from 19% to 12% and that he has erred in not granting interest for the pre- reference period and restricting the interest claim only from the date of the award.

2. Along with the Memorandum of Appeal, the petitioner herein has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.

3. It is a general principle in the relevant rules/Statutes that an action against a judgment must be brought promptly when once the aggrieved party becomes aware of the existence of the judgment against him. Where the party is not under disability when he was aware of the judgment, the running of the time will not be suspended and a right is going to be created if the time stipulated expires. The time within which the action may be brought is to be measured from the date on which the aggrieved party had the knowledge of the j







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