In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. The Central Bank of India and Anr.[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified as to when the three-year limitation period contemplated under Article 113[2] of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act), commences. It has also reiterated the importance of considering the averments made in a plaint as a whole while determining an application for rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11[3] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
More Posts
Do parties have an unfettered right to exclude or limit their liability for breach of contract? – Part II
Do parties have an unfettered right to exclude or limit their liability for breach of contract? – Part I
To Pay Rent or Not To Pay Rent? The Delhi High Court rejects plea for suspension of rent during lockdown
Determinable Contracts Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Part II
Determinable contracts under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Part I
Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A Fly in the Ointment? (Part II)
Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A Fly in the Ointment? (Part I)
Contract of service or contract for service: The Supreme Court Test
Public Interest versus Promissory Estoppel – Chalk another one up on the board for Public Interest
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS