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.… Read More Calcutta High Court clarified the meaning “time requisite” in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for Certified Copy

How to compute Limitation for filing appeal if applied for Certified 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.… Read More How to compute Limitation for filing appeal if applied for Certified Copy of the order

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 of cognizance by the Magistrate or issuance of process by the Court. In Basavantappa Basappa Bannihalli and Anr. v. Shankarappa Marigallappa Bannihalli, 1990… Read More The period of limitation in case of Criminal complaint is to be determined on the date of presentation of the complaint to the magistrate

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] When Supreme  Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 136, it definitely exercises a discretionary jurisdiction but such discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised… Read More 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 .

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 complaint must disclose relevant material ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. If there is a flavour of civil… Read More If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to a criminal proceeding.

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 in State of Goa v. Western Builders (supra) in the context of the provisions contained in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench… Read More 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.

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 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The two-Judge Bench referred to earlier decisions in Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel,… Read More 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.

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 Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings at the stage of F. I. R.… Read More 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.

Concept of adverse possession and its consequences wherever attracted has been recognized in the statute dealing with limitation.

In India Article 65 of Limitation Act prescribed limitation to recover possession from the person in wrongful possession is 12 years from the date when the person in possession set up hostile title or adverse title, continuing in possession. Article 65, Schedule I of The Limitation Act prescribes limitation of 12 years for a suit… Read More Concept of adverse possession and its consequences wherever attracted has been recognized in the statute dealing with limitation.

Whether there is any limitation for recovering the sum due as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and if there is none, whether recovery can be made within reasonable time or it is open to recover at any point of time?

Allahabad High Court in Narendra Kumar And Anr. vs Collector And Ors. on 23 March, 2004 Equivalent citations: (2004) 2 UPLBEC 2037 held : The Act does not provide for any period of limitation. But Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act is extracted below : “3. (4) In the case of any agreement referred to… Read More Whether there is any limitation for recovering the sum due as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and if there is none, whether recovery can be made within reasonable time or it is open to recover at any point of time?

OBJECTIVE SAMPLE QUESTIONS ON LIMITATION ACT, 1963

Application includes Writ Petition Interlocutory application Petition for restoration of suit Above all Suit does not include an appeal or an application in Limitation Act  True False Cannot be said Not a subject matter of limitation act  The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings before courts Suit before courts Suit and Proceeding Both all the… Read More OBJECTIVE SAMPLE QUESTIONS ON LIMITATION ACT, 1963

An Application for restoration a suit dismissed for default if again dismissed for default , the provision of Section 141 read with order 9 would apply and Limitation for such application be governed by Section 137 of Limitation Act- Calcutta High Court[12 May, 1988]

Whether by invoking the provision of Section 141 of the Code, an application under Order 9, Rule 4 or Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code can be made for setting aside an order of dismissal for default of an application under Rules 4, 9 or 13 of Order 9 of the Code?… Read More An Application for restoration a suit dismissed for default if again dismissed for default , the provision of Section 141 read with order 9 would apply and Limitation for such application be governed by Section 137 of Limitation Act- Calcutta High Court[12 May, 1988]