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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a settlement of accounts in a money-lending transaction, where the account consists of debits for advances and credits for payments, can amount to an account stated within Article 64 of Schedule 1, Limitation Act, 1908.
Analysis: An account stated is not confined to cases of reciprocal money claims in the narrow sense. The essential feature is that the parties mutually agree the items on each side, treat the agreed items as discharging one another pro tanto, and strike a balance payable as a new debt. Such a settlement is bilateral in nature, supported by mutual consideration, and gives rise to a fresh cause of action. The character of the underlying dealings does not prevent an account from being stated, and purely financial dealings between lender and borrower may still support such a settlement if the balance is agreed between the parties. The binding effect of the settlement is not defeated merely because some items may be time-barred.
Conclusion: The settlement reached between the parties was an account stated within Article 64 of Schedule 1, Limitation Act, 1908, and the conclusion was in favour of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: A money account may be an account stated where the parties mutually agree the items on both sides and strike a balance payable as a new debt, even though the dealings are purely financial and some items may be statute-barred.