Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Jillellamudi Dhanalakshmi vs The Union Bank Of India on 14 February, 1992

M.N.M.R. Cotton Industries vs Jyothi Chit Fund Company, Guntur on 4 May, 2022

22. The Division bench of composite High Court in Jillelamudi Dhanalakshmi Vs the Union Bank of India1 while dealing with Article 37 of the Limitation Act held that the period of three years begins to run when the default is made unless the payee or obligee waives the benefit. It was further held that when the first installment fell due on 30-6-1976, the limitation began to run from 30-6-1976 and the suit filed beyond three years is held to be barred by limitation.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vastava Chit Funds (Private) Ltd. vs Madala Benarjee And Ors. on 2 March, 2005

12. It is pertinent to note here that the Apex Court in Shriram Chits and Investments (P) Limited v. Union of India and Ors. (2nd supra) did not consider the aspect of reckoning the period of limitation, but a Division Bench of this Court in Dhanalakshmi's case (3rd supra) and a learned Single Judge of this court in K.V. Raghavulu's case (4th read above), have taken the view that the contract based on promissory note, or bond or on documents more than one, period of three years begins to run when the default is made unless the payee or obligee waives the benefit. Admittedly, the contract in the present case, arose out of chit transaction, which is based on more than two documents viz., Ex.A-3 dated 12-5-1995-agreement of chit executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A-4 dated 23-6-1995 - agreement of guarantee executed by the defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A-5 dated 23-6-1995 promissory note executed by the defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff's company.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - E D Rao - Full Document

Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh vs Sh. Satish Chawala on 4 October, 2007

22. Per contra, ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that Ex.PW1/A is a simple bond and the relevant Article of the Limitation Act is Article 28, as per which the limitation of three years would begin to run from the date specified for payment in the bond. Taking three years from the date of October 2003 specified for payment, the suit brought on 26/09/06 is within limitation period. Ld. counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on the judgments of BHAGWANT RAO DEO RAO PATIL vs MOHD. KHAN ASGAR KHAN, AIR 1977 MP 270; JILLELLAMUDI DHANLAKSHMI vs UNION BANK OF INDIA, 1992 CCC 446 (AP); and ARJUN SAHAI vs PITAMBAR DASS, AIR 1963 CS/259/06 Page 10 of 18 pages 11 ALLAHABAD 278.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1