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>Court dismisses recovery suit, ruling acknowledgment not in writing, time-barred under Limitation Act.</h1> The court dismissed the plaintiff's recovery suit against the defendants, ruling it as barred by limitation. The plaintiff claimed the acknowledgment of ... - Issues involved: Suit for recovery of amount, acknowledgment of liability, limitation period.Details of the judgment:1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of a specific amount. The defendants filed an application for dismissal of the suit on the grounds of limitation.2. The plaintiff, a company under the Indian Companies Act, placed a purchase order with the defendants for furniture to renovate its restaurant in London. The defendants raised a bill for the furniture supplied, which the plaintiff partially paid. Disputes arose regarding sales tax liability and alleged defective supplies.3. The plaintiff claimed that the cause of action for the suit arose on various dates, including when the purchase order was placed, bill raised, and defective material received. The last alleged cause of action was on 5.8.2002 when a meeting was held where the defendants allegedly acknowledged the defects.4. The plaintiff argued that the suit was not barred by limitation as the acknowledgment of liability by the defendants in the meeting of 5.8.2002 extended the limitation period. However, it was found that the acknowledgment was not in writing as required by Section 18 of the Limitation Act.5. The court held that even if the alleged acknowledgment was accepted, the suit would still be barred by limitation as it was not recorded in writing. Therefore, the suit filed on 18.12.2003, regarding causes of action prior to three years, was dismissed as barred by limitation.6. The court allowed the application filed by the defendants and dismissed the main recovery suit of the plaintiff as barred by limitation, with each party bearing their own costs. The order specified that it would not influence the decision of the suit pending before the Civil Judge, Delhi.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
