Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing G.S.Panicker vs K.Prabhakaran on 5 June, 1995

Sterling Technotrade India Pvt.Ltd vs M/S Chandralekha Constitution Pvt. Ltd ... on 5 August, 2024

In the considered opinion of this Court the dicta referred to by Ld. Counsel namely the order of the Hon'ble NCLAT in G.L.Shoes's case (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. The facts before the Hon'ble NCLAT was that an unsigned and unstamped account statement of a company annexed with a mail was being relied as an acknowledgment in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act for extending the period of limitation. In the present case the acknowledgment being relied upon by the Plaintiff is in the main body of the mail itself.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The District Collector vs K. Kunhambu Nair on 30 August, 1995

11. The above view is supported by the decision of this Court in Panicker v. Prabhakaran [1993 (2) KLT 417] , wherein this Court held that a promise made by the debtor, in a reply notice sent by his lawyer, to the creditor expressing his willingness to pay the time barred debt, would create a fresh contract under Sec.25(3) of the Contract Act and when part of a barred debt is promised to be paid as falling under Sec.25(3) of the Contract Act, that will entitle the promisee only realise that much of the debt, and not the entire liability which existed.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1