M.P.Farook vs K.Sasikumar on 16 December, 2019
In Saman Dharman vs. S.Natarajan reported in CDJ 2012 MHC
1637, this Court has held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.53 seconds)Documents citing
Sama Dharman vs S.Natarajan on 25 July, 2012
V.Somasundaram vs M/S.My Estates Infrastructures ... on 15 September, 2015
8.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied
on by the petitioner reported in 2012-2 L.W. (Crl.) 516 ? Sama Dharman &
another V. S.Natarajan, wherein, this Court has held that the cheques were
given only for time barred debt and it has not been issued for discharging
legally subsisting liability. Here, it is well settled dictum of Apex Court
that the question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and that
can be decided only at the time of trial after letting evidence. It is
pertinent to note that issuance of cheques is admitted and the signature in
the cheques also admitted. In such circumstances, I am of the view that
whether there is any mutual and running account between the parties after
18.01.2010 till the issuance of cheques on 09.08.2014 has to be decided only
at the time of trial after letting oral and documentary evidence and hence, I
do not find any reason to quash the proceedings and the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
Insulation House vs Pramod Kumar Daga on 7 March, 2019
10. He has also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of
Sama Dharman and another Vs. S.Natarajan in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3824 of 2012, wherein this Court has held as follows:
Navdeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 June, 2023
Moreover, as per Section 18 of Judgment in the case of
Limitation Act, option (a) is also the Sama Dharman v S.
correct answer. Natarajan, Crl. O.P. (MD)
No. 3824/2012, by the
CWP No. 9028 of 2023. Hon'ble High Court of
That the Petitioner claims that the Madras, relied on by one
correct Answer of Question No.91 of the objectors support the
is answer "B" and the reasoning of above view.
which is duly Supported by Law is The question is asking
stated as below: about the effect of
The important words in Section 5 of acknowledgement on the
Limitation Act are "may be period of limitation, a
admitted". The legislature has not question under the
used the expression "shall be Limitation Act. 1963. The
admitted". panel has considered the
Perusal of the said provision makes cited judicial precedents
it clear that even the and found those to be
acknowledgement of debt is given inapplicable to the posed
after the debt is barred then it question. A detailed
amounts to be a contract and it can discussion on the cited
be enforced in the competent court precedent is being obviated
of law as a separate contract. It to avoid prolixity.
cannot be said that the said Accordingly, the
acknowledgement has no effect. objections raised by the
candidates have no merits.
N.Prabhakaran vs Praveen Bohra Jain on 1 December, 2021
4. This Court has held in Sama Dharman's Case (Supra) that to
comply the provisions under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, unless a
specific contract in form of novation is created with regard to payment of time
barred debt, Section 25(3) of the said Act cannot be invoked.
Sekar S vs K.Mariasamy on 14 September, 2022
12. This Court on considering the fact and the clarification
of this Court in the Sama Dharman case holds that the finding of the
Courts below is legally and factually sustainable, there is no error either
in appreciation of evidence or the law.
Shiv Kumar Vashisht vs . Govind Singh Soun & Anr. on 18 February, 2014
Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the following judgments Kumar Exports Vs.
Sharma Carpets 2009 II AD (S.C) 117, Punj Lioyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt.
Ltd. 2009 II AD (S.C) 124, Devi Vs. Hari Dass 2004 CriLJ 4710 (Kerala High Court), M/s
Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Vinnay Aggarwal DoD 21.04.2009 Delhi High
Court, Sama Dharman Vs. S. Natarajan DoD 25.07.2012 Madras High Court.
Shiv Kumar Vashisht vs . Govind Singh Soun & Anr. on 18 February, 2014
Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the following judgments Kumar Exports Vs.
Sharma Carpets 2009 II AD (S.C) 117, Punj Lioyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt.
Ltd. 2009 II AD (S.C) 124, Devi Vs. Hari Dass 2004 CriLJ 4710 (Kerala High Court), M/s
Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Vinnay Aggarwal DoD 21.04.2009 Delhi High
Court, Sama Dharman Vs. S. Natarajan DoD 25.07.2012 Madras High Court.
Shiv Kumar Vashisht vs . Govind Singh Soun & Anr. on 18 February, 2014
Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the following judgments Kumar Exports Vs.
Sharma Carpets 2009 II AD (S.C) 117, Punj Lioyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt.
Ltd. 2009 II AD (S.C) 124, Devi Vs. Hari Dass 2004 CriLJ 4710 (Kerala High Court), M/s
Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Vinnay Aggarwal DoD 21.04.2009 Delhi High
Court, Sama Dharman Vs. S. Natarajan DoD 25.07.2012 Madras High Court.
Sankar vs Shiek Ansar on 13 June, 2022
3. The learned single Judge who has passed the above judgment
relying upon the other judgment of this Court in Sama Dharman and
Another vs. S. Natarajan in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3824 of 2012 dated
25.07.2012. It is also relevant to note that challenging the above order an
appeal was filed before the Honourable Apex Court.