Civil procedure and limitation
CPC and the Limitation Act: jurisdiction, res judicata, delay.
12 of the 31 judgments in our library on this topic: the ones other judgments here cite most, oldest first.
0 of 12 read
Start: Daryao v. State of Uttar PradeshYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
27 March 1961 · 5 judges
Daryao v. State of Uttar PradeshWhere a High Court dismisses an Article 226 petition on the merits after contest, res judicata bars a fresh Article 32 petition on the same facts for the same relief, unless the decision is set aside in appeal.
On this path for: Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (principle of res judicata)
15 January 1963 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Fateh Chand v. Balkishan DasSection 74 of the Contract Act applies to every stipulation by way of penalty, including forfeiture of money already paid; the seller could keep only the Rs. 1,000 earnest money, not the Rs. 24,000 part price, without proof of loss.
On this path for: Section 2(12), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (mesne profits); Order XX Rule 12(1)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
5 April 1968 · 5 judges
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya PradeshA civil suit lay to recover sales tax collected under notifications void under Article 301, despite the bar in Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act; the Court stated seven principles on exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.
On this path for: Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
19 February 1987 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. KatijiThe Court held that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be applied liberally to do substantial justice, that the State is entitled to the same treatment as any litigant, and condoned a four-day delay.
On this path for: Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963
3 October 1991 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of IndiaOn review, the Court upheld the US $470 million Bhopal settlement and its Article 142 power to record it, but revived the quashed criminal proceedings and declared the Union of India liable to meet any shortfall in the fund.
On this path for: Order XXIII Rule 3B, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
25 February 2016 · 5 judges
Pankajakshi v. ChandrikaSection 23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, requiring reference to a third Judge when a Division Bench differs on fact or law, is special law prevailing over Section 98(2) CPC in Kerala; Hemalatha was overruled.
On this path for: Section 98, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
10 December 2019 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd.Designating a seat of arbitration works as an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the courts at the seat; an order returning a Section 34 petition is not appealable under Section 37; New Delhi was held to be the seat.
On this path for: Section 13, Commercial Courts Act, 2015
15 October 2020 · 3 judges
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha AhujaA shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act need not belong to the husband or his joint family; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra was held not good law, and the owner's civil suit was remanded for trial.
On this path for: Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
19 January 2021 · 3 judges
Manish Kumar v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendments: the threshold of 100 or ten per cent for allottees and certain financial creditors under Section 7, the deemed withdrawal of pending applications, Explanation II to Section 11, and Section 32A.
On this path for: Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963
6 August 2021 · 2 judges
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd.An Emergency Arbitrator's interim award under institutional rules agreed by the parties is an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act, enforceable under Section 17(2), and no appeal lies against an enforcement order under Section 17(2).
On this path for: Order XLIII Rule 1(r), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
17 August 2022 · 2 judges
Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.Pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory; a suit filed in breach of it must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a declaration made effective from 20.08.2022.
On this path for: Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
21 September 2026 · 2 judges
John Mathew v. Santha PaulFraming all issues does not exhaust the power under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC to try a qualifying issue of law first, but once trial of the issues generally has begun, that power can no longer be used.
On this path for: Order XIV Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.