Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Limitation Act

219 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–219.

M/S RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO. LTD.versusGANESH PROPERTY

1998 INSC 3548 September 1998Dismissed

The landlord, a partnership firm, sued its former tenant for possession of premises after a 21‑year lease expired. The partnership was unregistered when the suit was filed, raising a bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The trial court and High Court held the suit maintainable and granted possession. On appe…

CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1986 INSC 1168 May 1986Dismissed

The appellants were arrested following a deadly riot and were remanded to judicial custody on July 20, 1985, with successive extensions until October 18, 1985. A charge‑sheet was filed on October 17, the 90th day of remand, and the magistrate granted bail, holding that the 90‑day limit in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) …

LAKSHMI BANGLE STORESversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 3786 December 1990Dismissed

Lakshmi Bangle Stores booked a railway wagon in June 1964, declaring the value of the consigned glass bangles as Rs.25,000. The wagon was involved in an accident on June 22, 1964 and the goods were delivered after an open assessment on September 4, 1964, revealing that more than half were damaged. The appellant claimed…

M/S EXL CAREERS AND ANOTHERversusFRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

2020 INSC 4775 August 2020Disposed off

The appellant, EXL Careers, filed a suit for recovery in a Gurgaon civil court despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a franchise agreement that designated Delhi courts as the sole forum. The Gurgaon court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the High Court ordered its transfer to Delhi, dir…

BHAWARLAL BHANDARIversusM/S UNIVERSAL HEAVY MECHANICAL LIFTING ENTERPRISES

1998 INSC 4614 December 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bhandari had given a short‑term loan of Rs 15 lakh to the respondent Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises. A dispute over interest and repayment was referred to arbitration; the arbitrator passed an award on 17‑Apr‑1985 and, after a four‑year delay, filed it in the Calcutta High Court on 23‑Mar‑1989 to be…

RAJESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS.versusAVNEESH KUMAR AVASTHI AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1844 April 2002Dismissed

The Lala Nanak Chand Trust leased a plot in Meerut to trustee Bateshwar Dayal for 30 years with a renewal clause. After the lease expired, the Trust sued for possession and obtained a decree; the lessee’s heirs later sought specific performance of the renewal clause, but their suit was dismissed as time‑barred. While t…

LAXMI ENGINEERING WORKSversusP.S.G. INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE

1995 INSC 2484 April 1995Dismissed

Laxmi Engineering Works, a small‑scale proprietary concern, bought a CNC universal turning machine from P.S.G. Industrial Institute and alleged it was defective, claiming Rs. 4 lakhs. The Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed part of the claim, but the National Consumer Commission set it aside, hol…

RAM KARAN GUPTAversusJ.S. EXIM LTD. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 5593 December 2012Dismissed

In a partition suit, the suit property was ordered to be sold by public auction. J.S. Exim Ltd., the highest bidder, paid 25% of the bid amount by demand drafts on the auction day and the remaining 75% within the statutory period. The judgment debtor, Ram Karan Gupta, challenged the sale alleging non‑compliance with Or…

DALIP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2009 INSC 12773 December 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Dalip Singh, sought to set aside an ex‑parte order that declared 18.22 acres of his late father Praveen Singh's land surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The tenure‑holder had been served a notice in 1975 but failed to object; an ex‑parte order was made in Dec…

A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS.versusV.N. SUBRAMANIYAM

2012 INSC 2633 July 2012Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged…

SUBODH KUMARversusSHAMIM AHMED

2021 INSC 1463 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

In 1994 the landlord filed a suit for possession, rent and mesne profits against the tenant, who failed to file a written statement, leading to an ex‑parte decree in 1998. The tenant later filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) on 25 August 1998 to set aside the decr…

GURCHARAN SINGHversusSURJIT SINGH AND ANR.

2012 INSC 5072 November 2012Disposed off

The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.7735 of 2010 against respondent Surjit Singh, who had actually died on 09‑06‑2009, a fact discovered only later. The petitioner then moved Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.2 seeking substitution of the deceased respondent’s legal representatives and I.A. No.3 seek…

SMT. KANAK AND ANR.versusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS.

2003 INSC 4411 September 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from a housing scheme originally framed by Agra Nagar Mahapalika under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Act, 1959, whose execution was later transferred to the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Parishad). Owners of the acquired land, dissatisfied with the compensation, applied for a r…

ARM GROUP ENTERPRISES LTD.versusWALDORF RESTAURANT AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2011 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, ARM Group Enterprises Ltd., owned premises that were leased to Allenberry & Co., who gave notice of surrender on 31‑Aug‑1953 but failed to hand over vacant possession. The tenant vacated under a compromise decree that reserved the landlord's right to evict any sub‑tenants. The restaurant Waldorf, initiall…

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.versusV.R. KALLIYANIKUTTY AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1999 INSC 1511 April 1999Disposed off

The State of Kerala issued notifications under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 to enable banks and the Kerala Financial Corporation to recover agricultural loans through a speedy summary procedure. The respondents argued that even if the loans were time‑barred under the Limitation Act, the Act’s pro…

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search