It must be borne in mind that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down its own period of limitation.
Calcutta High Court clarified the meaning “time requisite” in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for Certified Copy
The position has also been made clear by the latest Supreme Court decision on this point in the case of the The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Madan Lal Das and Sons, Bareilly, . This decision interpreted Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and following its earlier decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Maharaj Narain and Others, the Supreme Court observed that the expression “time requisite” in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act cannot be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order.
However, the applicant is entitled to have the period of deduction computed from the date the application for a certified copy of the decree is made, till it is delivered, provided the application is filed within the period prescribed for filing the appeal, and no part of this period is due to any lapse on the part of the applicant, such as failure to supply copying sheets or deposit the cost of a certified copy within the time stipulated and failure to collect a copy on the date fixed for taken delivery of the same, irrespective of the fact whether on the date of filing of the application, the decree was signed or not. The limitation commences from the date of the Judgment and not from the date the decree is signed.
there is no obligation of a litigant to apply for final decree proceedings. As such there is no question of application of the limitation.
The period of limitation in case of Criminal complaint is to be determined on the date of presentation of the complaint to the magistrate
After referring to several decisions, the Supreme Court held that the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code should be related to the filing of complaint and not to the date […]
If Apex Court is of opinion that acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it may review entire material and there will be no limitation on Apex Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 .
In State of Rajasthan Versus Islam and others [AIR 2011 SC 2317 : JT 2011 (6) SC 452 : (2011) 6 SCALE 389 : (2011) 6 SCC 343 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 951] […]
If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to a criminal proceeding.
Supreme Court in Thermax Ltd. and others Versus K.M. Johny and others [(2011) 11 SCALE 128] The principles enunciated from the above-quoted decisions clearly show that for proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code, the […]
Whether Section 14 of the limitation Act can be relied upon for excluding the time spent in prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum in the context of the provisions contained in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The question whether Section 14 of the limitation Act can be relied upon for excluding the time spent in prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum was considered by a two Judge Bench […]
Whether Section 5 of the limitation Act can be invoked for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In Union of India v. Popular Construction Company , Supreme Court considered the question whether Section 5 of the limitation Act can be invoked for condonation of delay in filing an application […]
Limitations in exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings at the stage of F. I. R.
In State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335, this Court has exhaustively considered after having referred to a number of decisions, the limitations in exercising the powers under […]