Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

R.B. Policies At Lloyd’s v. Butler (1949)

By

 R.B. Policies At Lloyd’s v. Butler (1949) 

Introduction

This suit instituted by the plantiff "R.B Policies", who lost his motor car in June ,1940, against the defendant, in July 1947. Since the suit was instituted after the prescribed time period of 6 years by the Limitation Act, 1939, the Court declared it to be time barred.

Facts

  • The action brought by the plantiff against the defendant 'Mr. Alfred Butler' by a writ on July 1947, to claim the return of the motor car which was stolen from the plantiff on June, 1940 .
  • In Jan 1947, the plantiff found car in the possession of the defendant with different registration no. which has been passed through a line of different purchasers during the previous seven years.
  • Therefore, the plantiff filed suit on ground of wrongful detention of car by the defendant. 

Defendant pleaded

  • Plantiff cause of action is barred by the Limitation Act, 1939, Section 2(1) of which says :
    • No action shall be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Main Issue

  1. When does the cause of action accrue ? 
  2. Whether the suit is time barred.

Court observation and Ratio

  1. Limitation Act is based on a legal maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Iura Subveniunt" which says who go to sleep, their claim not assisted by the court.
  2. As per 1939 limitation act : 
    • The moment this car was stolen, time begins to run from that moment, despite of the fact that the plantiff is ignorant of the thief.
  3. In the case of  A’ Court v. Cross 1825 : The Court held that "limitation is often called an act of peace, long dormant claims have more cruelty than of justice in them. 
  4. By virtue of Section 3 of 1963 limitation act : It is obligatory on part of Court to dismiss the suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period. 
  5. The Court observed that although the plantiff was not guilty of cruel conduct but a claim after seven or eight years against the innocent holder who have given good consideration for it, without any knowledge that it was stolen property, does not seem justice. 

Judgment 

  • Appeal dismissed. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more