Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1966 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1966 (12) TMI 74 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Whether a payment of Rs. 1000 by draft was towards the suit promissory note.
2. Whether the suit was within the time limit under the Limitation Act 1908.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,118-75 due on a promissory note, including interest. The first respondent made payments towards the debt, including Rs. 1000 by draft. The court below held that this payment was not towards the promissory note, leading to the suit being barred by limitation. However, the High Court found evidence that the payment was indeed towards the promissory note, based on the draft details, family account entries, and correspondence. The High Court disagreed with the lower court's reasoning and concluded that the last payment of Rs. 1000 was towards the suit promissory note, reversing the lower court's decision.

2. The issue of whether the suit was within the time limit involved a discussion on the application of Sections 13, 19, and 3 of the Limitation Act 1908. The first respondent argued that any part payment or acknowledgment made during the extended period under Section 13 would not avail for starting a fresh period of limitation under Section 19. The High Court disagreed with this contention, emphasizing that Section 19 allows for a fresh period of limitation if there is an acknowledgment of liability before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit. The High Court distinguished between Sections 4 and 14, highlighting that exclusion of time under Section 14 effectively extends the period of limitation, allowing for acknowledgments within the extended period. Relying on legal precedents, the High Court concluded that the suit was within time and allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment and decreeing the suit with costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates