Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)
Delhi State Industrial Development ... vs Shri Prakash Sethi And Anr. on 25 January, 2007 cites

Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar ... vs K.M. Ol. M. Somasundaram Chettiar And ... on 9 August, 1963

5. Except Issue No. 2, no other issues require any discussion, as the appellant before us is aggrieved from the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court upon that issue. The issue relates to the plea of limitation. The learned Trial Court holding that exhibit P4 does not amount to acknowledgment would render the claim of the appellant partially barred by time. While relying upon the judgment in the case of Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors. v. V.K.M.O.N.M. Sonasunderan Chettiar , the Court held that if a debt becomes barred by applying the three years rule of limitation contained in Article 115, subsequent acknowledgment or any suspension of any cause of action by the Statute will not have the effect of reviving the date. In the present case, the loan was admitted and the defendants in the suit had not proved by any evidence on record, the complete discharge of debt. The Court held that the loan extended on 1.4.1975 was barred by time.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sant Lal Mahton vs Kamala Prasad on 17 October, 1951

In the case of Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad , the Supreme Court clearly stated the principle that it is not necessary that writing and acknowledging the payment must be simultaneous with the payment. It could be at a different time. The acknowledgment is to be signed by the debtor or his authorised person. In the present case, letters of acknowledgment have been signed by the debtor himself. In these letters they have clearly admitted that payments were made by them towards discharge of their debt, but they could not fully and finally discharge their liability. The payment was made even on 7.2.1975. The cumulative effect of the letters of acknowledgment and the payments received by the appellant from time to time clearly shows that the suit of the plaintiff could not have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the grounds of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 58 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1