SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 59 OF THE LIMITATION ACT,1963, Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr Lrs & Ors, (2020) 07 SC CK 0003

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com


Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr Lrs & Ors, (2020) 07 SC CK 0003

(A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra while  imposing a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant, dismissed the Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant by holding that the  delay of over 5 and 1⁄2 years after the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, shows that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted on 15.12.2014, even though the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, when the last cheque was delivered to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proof that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Reliance is placed on the recent judgment of this Court rendered in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs. Civil Appeal No.2960/2019 decided on 13.03.2019 wherein this Court held the suit would be barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, if it was filed beyond three years of the execution of the registered deed.)



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT WHETHER ORDERS AND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND STATE AUTHORITIES SUBSEQUENT TO FILING OF THE APPEAL CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE APPEAL OR NOT?

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S. MSD Real Estate LLP Vs. Collector Of Stamps & Anr., (2020) 09 SC CK 0027 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court Ruled that the orders and notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and other State Authorities subsequent to filing of the appeal, which have been brought on record subsequent to filing of the appeal are all subsequent actions which were not subject matter of the writ petition before the High Court and cannot be taken into consideration in the appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that subsequent notices, actions and orders, brought on record by an IA cannot be entertained in the appeal. However the pa...
Read more

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON DIRECTING A FRESH/ DE NOVO INVESTIGATION EVEN AFTER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 173(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THOUGH UNDER SECTION 173 (8) OF CR.P.C. ONLY A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Neetu Kumar Nagaich Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Others, (2020) 09 SC CK 0026 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while setting aside the Closure Report filed by the Police directed a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology also. No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo investigation. The Supreme Court was of the view that normally when an investigation has been concluded and...
Read more

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SECTION 5(2) READ WITH SECTION 5(1)(e) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent Of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., (2020) 09 SC CK 0031   A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge discharged the appellant from the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by giving their opinion that the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits...
Read more