![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/MicrosoftTeams-image-308-390x293.jpg)
Limitation Act
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/MicrosoftTeams-image-308-390x293.jpg)
![Kerala High Court](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MicrosoftTeams-image-310-390x293.jpg)
Delay cannot be condoned under Payment of Gratuity Act by taking the aid of the provisions of Limitation Act: Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court perused Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and held that the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot condone the delay in filing an appeal by entertaining an application under Limitation Act.
![Andhra Pradesh High Court](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/MicrosoftTeams-image-491-391x293.jpg)
Andhra Pradesh High Court explains scope of the residuary provision provided under Article 113 of the Limitation Act
When a case falls under any specific provision of law, their residuary clauses cannot be resorted to and the parties cannot seek shelter under the residuary provision under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
![Allahabad High Court](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MicrosoftTeams-image31-390x293.jpg)
Allahabad High Court holds revision order defective for admitting without condoning the delay
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MicrosoftTeams-image-213-1-440x293.jpg)
Instituting Cases at the Wrong Fora: A Catalyst for Delay in the Adjudication of Disputes
by Abhijith Christopher*
![NCLAT](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NCLAT_New-440x293.jpg)
NCLAT | Can the OTS proposal be an ‘acknowledgment of debt’ under S. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi: The Bench of Anant Bijay Singh, J., Judicial Member, and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member,
![NCLAT](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NCLAT_New-440x293.jpg)
Article 1 of Limitation Act deals with suits relating to accounts: NCLAT highlights scope of Art. 137 of Limitation Act
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) observed
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NCLATMD-440x293.jpg)
Whether fixation of salary of the MD is within the domain of IBC? NCLAT explains
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that
![National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NCDRC_-440x293.jpg)
Condonation of Delay: Is it a matter of right? NCDRC explains
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Expressing its opinion of ‘Condonation of Delay’, Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/MicrosoftTeams-image-13-440x293.png)
No bar to amendment of S. 7 IBC petition until final order; Money decree, recovery certificate in financial creditor’s favour gives fresh cause of action to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process: SC
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. held that there is no bar in law to amendment
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/sc-3-3-440x293.jpg)
Explained: Does Limitation Act, 1963 apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy*, JJ has held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to
Del HC | Any judicial system which does not provide finality to disputes, can never earn the trust, confidence and goodwill of the society: HC highlights ‘Consent Decree’ and ‘Lawful Compromise’
Litigants think that they can ‘hop on and hop off the case’ at any stage without any consequence using the slogan ‘pure justice’.
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NCLAT-440x293.jpg)
NCLAT | ‘Balance and Security Confirmation Letter’ is sufficient ‘acknowledgement of debt’ so as to extend limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings under S. 7 IBC
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Division Bench of Justice Venugopal M. (Judicial Member) and V.P. Singh (Technical Member) dismissed an
![](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/sc-3-3-440x293.jpg)
Balance sheet entries can amount to an acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that an entry made in the
Ker HC | [Eviction and Rent Control] Rent Control Court has power under S. 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay, if sufficient cause is shown; Petition allowed
Kerala High Court: A. Hariprasad J., while hearing a revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Chh HC | The word “sufficient cause” under S. 5 of Limitation Act should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented construction to advance justice
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., allowed the appeal and condoned the delay while setting aside the impugned order. The facts
Chh HC | Whether in a criminal proceeding, S. 14(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable? Court not to apply beneficent provisions in a pedantic manner
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that
Ker HC | Is there a limitation period for wife to claim property entrusted to in-laws given in form of dowry? Court answers
Kerala High Court: A Full Bench of A.M. Shaffique, Sunil Thomas and Gopinath, JJ., held that there is no limitation period for wife/divorced wife
Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines
Karnataka High Court: S. G. Pandit J., rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches. The facts of the case
Kar HC | Unless fraudulent act proved, limitation for suits by or on behalf of State or Centre not maintainable after 30 years
Karnataka High Court: M.I. Arun, J. allowed the writ petition and declared the show cause notice or any subsequent proceeding as null