Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Ramachandra Iyer vs Vadivelu on 16 October, 1987 cites

Firm Kamta Prasad Jagannath Prasad vs Gulzari Lal And Anr. on 12 October, 1954

This is a new provision introduced by the Act of 1963. The old Act contained no such definition of the expression 'period prescribed'. It was held under the old Act that even in cases where the plaintiff was entitled to the exclusion of a time under the provisions of some other Act, the period would be a 'period prescribed' within the meaning of Section 19 of that Act, arid saved limitation, (vide -- Subbarya v. Eswaramoorthi, and Firm Kamata Prasad v. Gulzari Lal, ). These decisions can no longer be considered good law under the new Act As pointed out above, the expression 'prescribed period' is now defined to mean the 'period of limitation' prescribed by the schedule and computed according to the sections in the Act. By the Limitation Act of 1963, a period which is required to be excluded under the provisions of some other Act, in computing the period of limitation cannot be treated as a 'prescribed period' and an acknowledgment made during that period will not be sufficient for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act of 1963. I therefore hold that the claim on Ex.A. 1 is barred by time.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1