Posts

Showing posts with the label Limitation Act

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, 137 AIR 1987

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji Case Summary 1987 Introduction   This  landmark judgement have explained the scope of Section 5, Limitation act ,1963 and inclusion of Government as a party to claim Condonation of delay. Facts   State of J&k appealed against the order of the HC by which the compensation, which had to be made for acquisition of land for public purpose, was enhanced.  However this appeal was rejected by the court due to delay of 4 days. Hence, State of J&K went to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Issue Involved On what ground, the court can condone the delay of an appeal ? Whether the law differs to 'Condone the delay' in case of State and Private Party ?  Ratio Decidendi Issue 1 The legislature has provided the power to condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . Section 5 of the limitation act says :  Any appeal or an application Other than an application made under Order XXI of the CPC, 1908
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Image
 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 expirat
Post a Comment
Read more