Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)The New Fleming Spinning And Weaving ... vs Kessowji Naik And Ors. on 16 January, 1885
5. There was some variance of opinion as to the scope of this section, and there were some cases which held that a claim for an account of property which had actually come into the hands of the trustee was not saved from the bar of limitation unless the property still continued in the hands of the trustee in one case it was said 'in specie' whereas a more liberal view was taken in some other cases that the section saved from the bar of limitation claims to property which had come into the hands of the trustee and for which he had become accountable. But we have not been referred to any case, and I am not aware of any, in which it was held that the bar of limitation under the old section was saved as regards cases where it was sought to render a trustee accountable not for property which had come into his hands, but for property which but for his wilful default or neglect would have come into his hands. Mr. Justice Scott in The New Fleming Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited v. Kessowji Naik (1885) I.L.R., 9 Bom., 373 at p. 399, expressly ruled that such claims were within the operation of the ordinary law of limitation. The next thing we observe is that the English legislature in 1888 51 & 52 Vict., Cap. 59, Section 8 departed from the policy till then followed as regards trustees, and afforded them the benefit of the operation of the statutes of limitation except in two specific cases, that is to say, except where a claim was founded on fraud or a fraudulent breach o£ trust, or--these are the important words--was:
Section 8 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
1