Search Judgments

The Limitation Act, 1963 Section 22, Article 113 –  The case pertains to an employee (plaintiff) seeking notional increments for his non-employment period from May 1991 to December 1996 and appropriate pay scale fitment from his reinstatement date (December 1996). This claim arose from a High Court order (W.P.No.17225 of 1991) directing his reinstatement with “continuity of service” but without backwages. The defendants (Bank) challenged the trial court’s decree, which granted the plaintiff Rs.10,01,000/-.

The Bank contended that “continuity of service” does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to notional increments, and that the suit was barred by limitation, applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the claim was allegedly rejected in 2003.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) – Section 6, 8 – The Second Appeal arose from a suit for partition of family properties. The original plaintiff sought a share in properties, asserting they were either ancestral (Items 1 & 2) or acquired from joint family income (Items 3-11). The defendants (father, brother, mother, and sister) contested, claiming Items 3-11 were the father’s self-acquired properties and that an oral partition had already occurred.

During the litigation, the father (1st defendant) and mother (3rd defendant) passed away.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – This appeal challenged a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement (Ex.A1) from 24.10.1999, where the defendants agreed to sell property to the plaintiff for Rs. 20,28,750/-, receiving an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
The agreement specified a four-month completion period.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 13, Order 22 Rules 4 & 9, Section 115; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5; Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227; Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 22 – The Plaintiff obtained an ex-parte decree on January 8, 2016, in an Original Suit for specific performance of a Sale Agreement dated June 26, 2014, after the Defendants allegedly failed to appear believing in a compromise. Based on this decree, a Sale Deed was executed, and an order for delivery of possession was subsequently issued in E.P. No.51 of 2017, triggering one of the present Civil Revision Petitions.

The Defendants initiated I.A.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) – Sections 5, 34, 37 – The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited against Tuticorin Port Trust concerning an arbitral award. The Appellant completed a dredging project for the Respondent. A dispute arose over the final bill, specifically Claim No. 7 for ‘idle time’ charges of a Backhoe Dredger (BHD).