AI Overview...
-
Right to Sue Accrue Under Limitation Act, 1963, Article 113 - The right to sue in a civil case generally accrues at the time the cause of action arises. Article 113 specifies a limitation period of three years from this date. Once the limitation period expires, the right to sue cannot be revived or extended to subsequent dates, and the limitation clock cannot be reset or differed to later dates. This principle is reinforced by various judicial decisions emphasizing that the limitation period is fixed and not extendable after its expiry, ensuring legal certainty and finality in civil litigation. STATE OF KERALA VS THALAYAR TEA COMPANY LTD. - Kerala
-
Limitation Periods and Accrual of Rights - Multiple sources confirm that the accrual of a right to sue is fixed at the moment the cause of action arises, and the limitation period begins from that date. The period cannot be extended or differed to subsequent dates, even if circumstances change or new facts emerge later. This applies across different types of claims, including property, succession, and contractual disputes. Satula Devi VS Rajeev Sharma - Delhi, Seelak Ram Balhara VS Bank of Baroda - Allahabad, Noor Aftab Parveen, W/o Late Sri Syed Ali VS H. N. Chandrashekar, S/o Late H. G. Nagappa, Since deceased by his LR’s - Karnataka
-
Effect of Limitation on Pending Litigation - Pending cases at the time of enactment of new limitation laws or amendments are generally not allowed to continue if they are barred by the limitation period. The limitation period, once expired, bars the right to sue, and courts will dismiss such cases regardless of subsequent developments. The limitation clock is not reset or extended retroactively, emphasizing the finality of limitation periods. CHHOTE KHAN VS MOHAMMAD OBEDULLA KHAN - Nagpur
-
Conclusion - The principle that the right to sue under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be differed or extended to subsequent dates underscores that limitation periods are fixed from the date the cause of action arises. Once the period lapses, the right to initiate legal proceedings is extinguished, and courts will not entertain claims based on claims of delayed or deferred limitation. This ensures consistency, finality, and adherence to statutory timelines in civil law.
Search Results for "Right to Sue Accrue 113 of Limitation Act can Not be Differed to Subsequent Dates"
1981 0 Supreme(Ker) 282 • India - Kerala
G.VISWANATHA.IYER, T.KOCHU THOMMEN, P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI
Limitation - State - Limitation Act, 1963, Art.24, Art.113 Fact of the Case: The respondent-plaintiff, The Thalayar ... under Art.24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ... Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by limitation and which provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied ... Whether Art.24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or 113 of that Act would....
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1680 • India - Delhi
V. KAMESWAR RAO
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 306 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Jurisdiction - The court affirmed that the probate ... , as the right to sue first accrued years earlier when properties were acquired - The plaintiff’s claim for declaration failed to ... The court stated that past decisions regarding stridhan do not exempt claims from falling within the limitation period. ... and, (ii) Under Article 120 of the 1908 Act#HL_....
2013 0 Supreme(All) 3482 • India - Allahabad
R.K.GUPTA
Act, 1963 - The court discussed the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the interpretation of continuing bank ... RDDBFI Act - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions - Section 18, Section 19, Article 62 of the Limitation ... Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the interpretation of continuing ... Even if Article 113 is to be applied, the time begins to....
2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 123 • India - Karnataka
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64, 27 and 113 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order II , 41 - Rule 2 and 22 ... of action as detailed in a particular paragraph of plaint - If identity of cause of action of previous suit and present suit is not ... and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 596as regards substantive principle of law under Order II Rule 2 of CPC do not ... (b) Whether the right of plaintiff to sue for recovery of possession stood extinguished by virtue of Section 27 of t....
2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 251 • India - Bombay
G.S.PATEL
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Arbitration Award - Grounds for setting aside Award ... mean that there can be a total disregard of the principles underlying Section 73 of the Contract Act - On the question of loss of ... Not one of the three is convincingly shown to have been cured or not to exist. All three continued. ... recouped by such deduction) any subsequent year. ... But - and this is the basic fact to be remembered throughout the present discussion - his attitude towards th....
1953 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 39 • India - Nagpur
SINHA, HIDAYATULLAH, MUDHOLKAR
Therefore, the pending litigation could not continue after the Act came into effect. ... Therefore, the pending litigation could not continue after the Act came into effect. ... Therefore, the pending litigation could not continue after the Act came into effect. ... It may consequently happen that while the plea of limitation would have been of no avail in answer to the claim of the original Plaintiff, it may be very effective as an answer to the subsequent#....
2019 8 Supreme 1 • India - Supreme Court
RANJAN GOGOI, S. A. BOBDE, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER
(Para 237 and 239) (P) Limitation Act 1898 – Article a href=act:395~S. ... (Paras 376, 377 and 378) (X) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section a href=act:395~S. ... (Paras 240, 241, 243, 251 to 254) (Q) Limitation Act, 1923 – Sections a href=act:395~S ... Therefore, the plaintiff‘s right to sue accrued on 26 April 1955. Suit 3 which was filed on 17 December 1959 was within the period of limitation of six years. ... to #HL_....
2017 0 Supreme(All) 1195 • India - Allahabad
SUDHIR AGARWAL, K.J.THAKER
Rule 3, Order XXXIX, Rule 2, Order XLI, Rule 4—General Rules Civil, 1957—Part C, Chapter III, Rules 40 to 64—Indian Succession Act ... , 1925—Sections 370 and 372—(Indian) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 63—Jyotirmath Shankaracharya—Installation and functioning—Dispute ... in connection of private right—Position of Shankaracharya is a Mission and property attached with the office is for accomplishment ... District Judge held that this argument supports the inference that on the death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram Saraswati, right#HL_EN....
2018 0 Supreme(AP) 144 • India - Andhra Pradesh
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
the Constitution of India and consequentially suspend the Extra-ordinary Gazette - Held, As it is said due process of law though not ... they exercise jurisdiction in entertaining an application or in setting aside a penal action imposed by a legislative body, could not ... safeguards of due process where the liberty of citizen is in jeopardy and that whether the liberty has been infringed illegally or not ... The conscience of the Constitution is the confluence of part III & IV and although the highest Court has sometimes diffe....
2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1566 • India - Madras
S.VAIDYANATHAN, V.PARTHIBAN, M.SUNDAR
jurisdiction of Constitutional Court for execution of the recommendation - Any discretion to implementing authorities to either accept or not ... Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 14,15 and 16 - Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Section ... Regulations framed under Act may be part of statutory scheme, nevertheless, words in Regulations cannot supplant provisions of Act ... Srinivas, would also to be understood, drawing inspiration from the subsequent additions made in the....
Filter by Legal Phrase
