Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 22 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 124 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 16 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Firm Bhagwandas Shobhalal Jain, A ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 1964
The learned single Judge has overlooked the fact that the present case is a case of recurring cause of action and not of continuing breach of contract or tort. Section 22 of the Limitation Act provides that in case of continuing breach of contract or in case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the breach or the tort, as the case may be. Tort has been defined under the Act as meaning a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. Admittedly, the present case is not of continuing breach of contract or tort because the contract stood rescinded by the D. F. O. and there is also no continuing wrong. A Division Bench of this Court in Firm Bhagwandas v. State of M. P. AIR 1966 Madh Pra 95 has held that the contract being repudiated by the State and the conduct of the plaintiffs also show that they had accepted the repudiation, the suit for damages should have been filed within 3 years of the rescission of the contract. That was not a case of successive or continuing breach.