Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Surajdin Laxmanlal vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 24 April, 1959
In the instant case, though the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Surajdin v. State of M.P., declared the collection
on 7-1/2% per cent illegal and that decision was reported in
1960 MPLJ 39, the Government was still charging it saying
that the matter was under consideration of the Government.
The final decision of the Government as stated in the letter
dated 17.10. 1961 was purely an internal communication of
the Government copy whereof was never communicated to the
appellants or other liquor contractors. There could, there-
fore, be no question of the limitation starting from that
date. Even with reasonable diligence, as envisaged in s.
17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, the appellants would have
taken at least week to know about it. Mr. Rana has fairly
stated that there was nothing on record to show that the
appellants knew about this letter on 17.10. 1961 itself or
within a reasonable time thereafter. We are inclined to
allow at least a week to the appellants under the above
provision. Again Mr. Rana has not been in a position to show
that the statement of the appellants that they knew about
the mistake only after the judgment in Doongaji's case
reported in 1962 MPLJ 130, in or about September, 1962,
whereafter they issued the notice under s. 80 C.P.C. was
untrue. This statement has not been shown to be false. In
either of the above cases, namely, of knowledge one week
after the letter dated 17.10. 1961 or in or about September,
1962, the suit would be within the period of limitation
under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
1963.