Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.06 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 35 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pilliar Temple vs M. Sakuntala(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 July, 2014
25. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on
reliance upon Satti Parabas Samadhi and Philliar Temple v. M.
Shakuntala6 is misplaced, merely for the reason that in the present
case, the question of limitation is not a mixed question of law and fact.
Article 35 of Part II - Suits Relating to Contracts, First Division -
Suits of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, unequivocally
provides the limitation period of 3 years from the date of the cheques.
The plaintiff has based its money claim under Order XXXVII, CPC,
on the cheques, which are dated 06.07.2012 and 07.07.2012, thus the
limitation period of 3 years would run from the dates of the cheques
and not from issuance of demand notice under Section 138,
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and/or from the date of the reply to
6 (2015) 5 SCC 674
CS DJ ADJ No. 515563/2016
Page No. 13/14
said notice by the defendant. In short, the plaintiff's claim is time
barred.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Urvashiben vs Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi on 14 December, 2018
12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the
summary suit preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant is barred
by law of limitation. The learned counsel for the defendant further
submitted that the plaintiff has preferred the summary suit beyond the
prescribed period of 3 years and the same be dismissed. The learned
counsel for the defendant submitted that the cheques are dated
07.07.2012 and the same were dishonoured on 11.07.2012, whereas
the plaintiff filed the plaint before the court on 17.07.2015, which is
well beyond the prescribe period. To buttress his arguments, learned
counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urvashiben & Anr. v. Krishnakant
Manuprasad Trivedi1 and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Virender Kumar Jain v. M/s Alumate (India) Pvt. Ltd.2
1 Civil Appeal No. 12070-12071/2018 arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 23062-23063 of 2018 date
of decision 14.12.2018 :: 2018 SCC OnLine 2833
Boston Scientific International B.V. vs Metro Hospital on 3 January, 2007
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed
reliance upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Boston Scientific International BV v. Metro Hospital.3 The
learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff on 22.11.2019 filed
the proof of the registered office address, which is situated within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court.
1