Posts

Extension of limitation period due to continuing tort

Ans:  Section 23 in The Limitation Act, 1963 Suits for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage.—In the case of a suit for compensation for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results therefrom, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the injury results. Continuing tort.-Continuing tort means a wrongful act which produces a state of affairs, every moment's continuance of which is a new wrong (i.e., which is a continuing source of injury) and is of such a nature as render the does of it responsible for the continuance. Where the wrongful act does not produce such a state of affairs but is a fleeting act like a slander uttered or a slap on the cheek, it is not a continuing tort. A husband or wife has a right to the society of his or her spouse. The duty of the latter is a continuing duty inasmuch as it is a duty to continue to give society. A breach of this obligation is a continuing tort w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Extension of limitation period due to fraud

Ans: . Fraud:  A mere threat used against the applicant is not a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application . According to section 17 of limitation act, 1963, w hen an appeal filed in a representative suit was returned for some corrections but was fraudulently not represented by the appellants and the persons represented applied that they should be allowed to prosecute the appeal, it was held that the application must be regarded as a fresh appeal and that the delay should be excused. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Extension of limitation period due to mistaken advice of legal practitioner

Ans:  According to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or application may be accepted even after the limitation period for the same is over, if the appellant/applicant assures the court that he had a sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal/application during the limitation period. (Rajendra Bahadur v. Rajeshwar Bali, A.I.R. P.C. 276 )  The Bombay High Court held that a  mistaken advice given by the legal practitioner, may in the circumstances of a particular case, rise to sufficient within the meaning of Section 5, though there is certainly no general doctrine which saves from the result of wrong advice.  x
Post a Comment
Read more

Extension of limitation due to erroneous advice of lawyer

Nrisingha Charan Nandy Choudhury v. Trigunand Jha Khoware And Others, Patna High Court, Mar 22, 1938 The patna high court held that ignorance of law is no excuse and is not a sufficient cause for condonation but if the mistake is honest and induced by erroneous advice of competent lawyer, it will be sufficient cause for extension of limitation. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Extension of limitation period due to illness ?

Ans:  Extension of limitation period due to illness. (Gouri Shankar v. Kashi Nath, A.L.J. 1934 All. 367). In this case, the Allahabad High Court held that a mere plea of appellant's illness is not a sufficient cause for filing an appeal beyond time unless it is shown that, the appellant was utterly disabled to attend any duty. High fever, attended with delirium by reason of which the applicant was absolutely confined to bed in consequence of which the application for review was delayed by four days, was a sufficient cause for excusing the delay of those days.  x
Post a Comment
Read more

Factual Matrix- 3

That the honourable Supreme Court set aside the order of high court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana And Others v. Israil Khan And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Oct 8, 2009 and ordered for the recovery of excess payment. Consequently, the respondent is entitled to recover the excess payment from the petitioner.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana And Others v. Israil Khan And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Oct 8, 2009 ?

 Ans:  Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana And Others v. Israil Khan And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Oct 8, 2009 The respondents and other employees of the said Society submitted representations for regular pay scales, instead of consolidated pay. The Managing Committee of the said Society passed a resolution extending the benefit of regular pay scale to the respondents with retrospective effect from 1-1-1996.  As a consequence, instead of a consolidated salary of Rs 1200 and Rs 800 respectively to which they were entitled, the first respondent and the second respondent were paid salary at the rate of Rs 3050 and Rs 2550 per month. As no funds were sanctioned or available to pay the arrears on the basis of such higher pay, the Managing Committee diverted the funds made available by the State Government (through the controlling bank) for disbursement of loans to farmers, to pay arrears of Rs 47,891 to the first respondent and Rs 42,300 to the second respondent on ...
Post a Comment
Read more