AUTHORITIES

S.No. Acts & Rules Pg.No.

01. LIMTATION ACT
02. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
08.
09.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
 2

LIMITATION ACT : New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold
Storage Pvt. Ltd - CONSUMER CASE – if company fails to file its reply within 30+15
days from date of receipt of summons, then its reply cannot be taken on record.
In almost all consumer cases, big fight which consumers have to fight is to get the
reply from the Company. Consumer Forums are also reluctant to proceed ahead and
keeps on giving dates for filing of Reply. Result – Inordinate delay in granting relief to
Consumers. - This issue arose before the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.
Ltd. (Decided On: 04.03.2020) and 5 Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has
decided that No reply can be filed after the expiry of 30 +15 days. – THE
CONSEQUENCE – Generally, Company files Reply on the first date of hearing. If 45
days has lapsed from the date of receipt of notice, no reply can be filed even on the First
date of Hearing. In any case, Consumer forums are powerless to grant period exceeding
45 days to Company to file their reply. - By Use of this Judgment, Battle is half won as
Company's defense will not be considered in the absence of Reply. This will not only
speedup the disposal of cases but will also ensure fast relief to Consumers.

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 - There is no requirement to obtain separate

endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light
motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to
that effect.
MUKUND DEWANGAN Appellant(s) Vs. ORIENTAL INS.CO.LTD. Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.5826/2011
CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA, HON. MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA
ROY AND HON. MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACT

1. 1997 (3) SCC – 1 : K.S. Vidyanadam and Others vs. Vairavan

Supreme Court of India - 06-02-1997 - Specific Relief Act, 1963

- Sections 10 and 20 - Time essence of agreement - Effect of - Delay in seeking

performance inspite of fixed time limit for performance - Enhancement in prices of
 3

properties - Exercise of discretion to grant relief of specific performance -

Considerations for - Rights of third parties came into existence - In the face of such
circumstance, relief of specific performance rightly declined.

2. AIR 2011 SC 3234

Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan vs. Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi and Others ;

Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi and Others vs. Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan and Another

[Supreme Court of India] 04-07-2011

3. 3013 (3) TNCJ 359

4. 2013 (3) MWN (Civil) 71

5. 2014 (6) CTC 195

6. 2017 (5) LW 344

Balakrishnan Vs. B.Veni

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – 02.06.2017 - Specific Relief Act, 1963
Specific performance of an agreement of sale and for consequential relief

7. Unreported – Mani Vs. Suriakala

Madras High Court – S.A.No. 822 / 2019, C.M.A No. 16741/2019

8. 2021 (1) LW 932

M.Kumar Vs. Balan
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court - 17.02.2021 - Specific Relief Act, 1963
Mere delay in filing the suit for specific performance cnnot be a ground to non-suit
the plaintiff, if he is otherwise shown to be ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract
4