Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Prabhakar Gones Prabhu Navelkar (Dead) Through Lrs VS Saradchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar (Dead) Through Lrs. ...
Prabhakar Gones Prabhu Navelkar (Dead) Through Lrs VS Saradchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar (Dead) Through Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 907 : The limitation period under the Portuguese Civil Code, specifically Article 535, which provided for extinguishment of obligations after 20 years of good faith non-demand or 30 years regardless of good faith, was impliedly repealed upon the application of the Indian Contract Act to Goa, Daman and Diu from 1 November 1965. As a result, the limitation period for contracts in Goa is governed by the Indian Contract Act, not the Portuguese Civil Code, and the provisions of Article 535 no longer apply.Checking relevance for Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association VS Bala...
Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association VS Bala - 2025 1 Supreme 297 : For a suit for specific performance of a contract, Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a limitation period. However, in the case of a second suit filed after the rejection of the first plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, Article 54 does not apply. Instead, the limitation period is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. In this case, the right to sue for the second suit accrued on 12.01.1998, the date of rejection of the first plaint, and the second suit filed in 2007 was therefore barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the three-year period.Checking relevance for Arif Azim Co. Ltd. VS Aptech Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Panchu Gopal Bose VS Board Of Trustees For Port Of Calcutta...
Panchu Gopal Bose VS Board Of Trustees For Port Of Calcutta - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 436 : Under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 apply to arbitrations as they apply to court proceedings. Sub-section (2) provides that, notwithstanding any term in an arbitration agreement to the contrary, a cause of action for arbitration is deemed to have accrued at the time it would have accrued but for the agreement. Sub-section (3) states that an arbitration is deemed to be commenced when one party serves a notice on the other requiring the appointment of an arbitrator or submission of the dispute to a designated person. This establishes that the limitation period for arbitration claims is governed by the Limitation Act, and the cause of action arises at the time it would have arisen in the absence of the arbitration agreement.Checking relevance for Food Corporation Of India VS New India Assurance Company LTD. : Anand Insurance Company LTD. ...
Food Corporation Of India VS New India Assurance Company LTD. : Anand Insurance Company LTD. - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 233 : Section 28 of the Contract Act renders void any agreement that restricts a party''''s right to enforce their rights under a contract by usual legal proceedings or limits the time within which such rights may be enforced. However, a clause in a Fidelity Insurance Guarantee that states ''''the corporation shall have no rights under this bond after the expiry of six months from the date of termination of the contract'''' is not automatically void under Section 28 if it is construed as limiting the right to claim rather than curtailing the time for legal enforcement. The courts have distinguished between agreements that extinguish a right (which may be valid) and those that merely limit the time to enforce a right (which are void under Section 28). In this case, the clause was held not to be contrary to Section 28 because it was interpreted as a condition precedent—requiring claims to be made within six months—rather than a restriction on the statutory period of limitation. The Supreme Court emphasized that parties cannot contractually reduce the statutory limitation period under the Limitation Act, but a clause that makes the right to claim dependent on timely action (e.g., within six months) may be valid if it does not directly curtail the statutory remedy.Checking relevance for DAHIBEN VS ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA)(D) THR LRS...
DAHIBEN VS ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA)(D) THR LRS - 2020 4 Supreme 160 : Under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for suits seeking declaration, cancellation of an instrument, or rescission of a contract is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The right to sue accrues when the cause of action arises, i.e., when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right. In cases involving a sale deed, if the cause of action arose in 2009, the suit must be filed within three years from that date, and any suit filed after this period is barred by limitation.
