TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms High Court judgment in favor of respondent, decreeing suit for Rs. 4,11,367.92. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Ram Janki Devi & Another Versus M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat</h3> The court affirmed the High Court's judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 4,11,367.92 with interest and costs. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent deposited the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with the appellant.2. Whether the suit was barred by time.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the respondent deposited the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with the appellant:- The respondent claimed that on 30 September 1942, they deposited Rs. 4,00,000 with M/s India Supplies, where the appellants were partners, under an agreement that the amount would be payable on demand with interest at 7/9% per month.- The evidence included entries in the respondent's books of account, such as the roznamcha (daily book), khata (ledger), and nakalbahi (journal), which indicated the deposit. The passbook entry (Ex-A-4) also showed the withdrawal of Rs. 4,00,000 on 30 September 1942.- The appellant argued that the term 'deposit' used in the documents was not decisive and contended that it was an ordinary loan of Rs. 4,00,000, not a deposit payable on demand.- The appellants provided six reasons for their contention, emphasizing that the transaction was a substitution of creditor-debtor relationships and not a deposit.- The court referred to the decision in V. E. A. Annamalai Chettiar & Anr. v. S. V. V. S. Veerappa Chettiar, stating that the nature of the transaction should be judged from the intention of the parties and the circumstances of the case.- The court concluded that the transaction was indeed a deposit based on the surrounding circumstances, the relationship between the parties, and the manner in which the transaction was treated.2. Whether the suit was barred by time:- The respondent contended that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable, which states that the limitation period for money deposited under an agreement payable on demand starts from the date of demand. The suit was filed within three years from the demand.- The appellant argued that it was a loan payable on demand under Article 59, and the limitation period started from the date of the loan, making the suit time-barred.- The court noted that the respondent demanded the money by a letter dated 27 April 1953, and the appellant denied the claim by a reply dated 5/6 May 1953.- The court referred to the views of the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts, which held that there must be an unqualified demand for the whole sum before the limitation can start in the case of a demand for the return of the amount deposited.- The court concluded that the suit was not barred by time as the demand was made within the limitation period.Conclusion:- The court affirmed the High Court's judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 4,11,367.92 with interest and costs.- The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
