TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the period during which the trustees were to realise and distribute the composition assets could be excluded in computing limitation for execution by applying the principle underlying Section 15(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908; (ii) Whether the letter dated 19 April 1949 constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 so as to save limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the period during which the trustees were to realise and distribute the composition assets could be excluded in computing limitation for execution by applying the principle underlying Section 15(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
Analysis: Section 15(1) applies only where execution of a decree has been stayed by injunction or order. The composition arrangement and its acceptance by the insolvency court did not amount to a stay of execution of the decrees, and the second defendant was not a party to the insolvency proceedings so as to claim the benefit of any such order. The Limitation Act is an exhaustive procedural code, and its provisions cannot be extended by analogy to situations outside their terms. The facts therefore did not justify exclusion of time on the footing of Section 15(1).
Conclusion: The claimed suspension or exclusion of time under Section 15(1) was not available, and the execution applications could not be treated as timely on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the letter dated 19 April 1949 constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 so as to save limitation.
Analysis: An acknowledgment must relate to a present subsisting liability and must indicate, expressly or by necessary implication, the existence of a jural relationship between the parties. The letter relied upon referred to the trustees' obligations under the composition scheme, including payment of maintenance and dividends, but did not refer to the decree debts as the second defendant's own subsisting liability. Referring to a liability resting on another person is not an acknowledgment of one's own liability, and the letter did not satisfy the requirements of Section 19.
Conclusion: The letter did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability, and limitation was not saved under Section 19.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both grounds, and the orders dismissing the execution applications as barred by time were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be extended by analogy beyond their express or necessarily implied scope, and an acknowledgment under Section 19 must relate to the maker's own subsisting liability and jural relationship, not merely to an obligation of another person.
TaxTMI 
