In which of the following cases did the court hold that the "Limitation Act bars remedy but does not…

It is a foundational principle under the Limitation Act, 1963 (subject to Section 27 in respect of suits for possession of property) that the law of limitation only bars the judicial remedy and does not extinguish the underlying substantive right. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court observed that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties but to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy promptly. This principle was similarly affirmed and applied in Food Corporation of India v. Jugal Kishore Agarwal, AIR 2001 Ori 158, and Mandas v. State of M.P.; hence all of the given options are correct.