Limitation Act 1963 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...

Supreme Court Clarifies HUF Property Partition Rights: Rejects Daughter’s Claim Due to Prior Settlements

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing that the court can dismiss a suit based on admissions without a formal application. It ruled that the decrees from prior suits, which were never challenged, conclusively determined the ownership of the properties, barring any fresh claims. The Court held that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not apply as the properties were partitioned before the cutoff date of 20th December 2004. Additionally, the suit for Anand Niketan house was barred by limitation, and the claims lacked sufficient pleadings to establish an HUF or coparcenary rights. The judgment reinforced the finality of unappealed decrees and the necessity of precise pleadings in pa...