TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Importance of Acknowledgment in Extending Limitation Periods: Section 13 vs. Section 14 Clarified</h1> The court dismissed the money suit on the grounds of limitation, highlighting the importance of a valid acknowledgment of liability to extend the ... - Issues:The judgment involves the dismissal of a money suit on the ground of limitation, with key issues including the acknowledgment of liability, application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and the interpretation of Section 13 of the Limitation Act.Issue 1: Acknowledgment of LiabilityThe plaintiff's appeal was against the dismissal of her money suit due to limitation. The respondent utilized the plaintiff's gold ornaments for renovation, as acknowledged in a Will. However, the Will's revocation and subsequent events led to the suit being filed afresh, raising the issue of limitation based on the dates of cause of action.Issue 2: Application for Permission to Sue as an Indigent PersonThe plaintiff's application for permission to sue as an indigent person was initially rejected, leading to subsequent legal proceedings. The court analyzed the implications of the rejection, the subsequent filing of the suit with court fee, and the application of Section 13 of the Limitation Act in this context.Judgment Analysis:The court emphasized that for a suit to be within time, it must be apparent on the face of the plaint. The acknowledgment of liability was a crucial aspect, with the court noting that the Will did not contain a valid acknowledgment that could extend the period of limitation. The court highlighted the necessity of an acknowledgment indicating a present subsisting liability for it to be valid under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.Regarding the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, the court delved into the interpretation of Section 13 of the Limitation Act. It clarified that the exclusion of time under Section 13 is distinct from that under Section 14, emphasizing that Section 13 applies when an application is rejected, and court fee is subsequently paid in good faith.The court differentiated between cases where a suit or appeal is filed as an indigent person and those where a fresh suit is filed independently. It underscored that Section 13 allows for the conversion of the same proceeding into a regular suit or appeal on payment of court fee, excluding the time spent in the original application process.Ultimately, the court upheld the dismissal of the suit as out of time, emphasizing that Section 13 does not apply to a fresh suit filed independently of the original proceedings. The appeal was consequently dismissed without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
