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>Amended petition filing not an acknowledgment of debts under Limitation Act Section 18</h1> <h3>R.S. Swami Rao and Ors. Versus T.K. Kumaraswamy and Ors.</h3> The appellate judge considered the filing of the amended petition as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation ... - Issues:1. Whether the suits are barred by limitationRs.Analysis:The suits in question were filed by different individuals against a partnership firm and its partners. The debts in all cases began on 10.10.1974 and ended on 9.4.1977. The partners filed for insolvency on 2.7.1977, but one creditor was not included initially. The creditor later applied to be added, and the amended petition was filed on 17.4.1980. The trial court dismissed the suits as time-barred, but the appellate judge considered the filing of the amended petition as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, thereby extending the limitation period. The appellate judge also examined the role of an advocate as an authorized agent for acknowledgment purposes and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the suits were not time-barred due to the filing of the true copy in the insolvency proceedings.2. Whether the filing of the true copy in court constitutes an acknowledgment of the debtsRs.The defendants argued that even if the insolvency petition filing could be considered an acknowledgment, the subsequent amendment and filing of the true copy in court did not constitute a valid acknowledgment under the law. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contended that the advocate filing the true copy containing details of the debts on behalf of the petitioners amounted to a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. They relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for a clear acknowledgment of the debtor-creditor relationship, even if not explicitly stated.3. Whether the filing of the amended petition with a new party constitutes a fresh acknowledgmentRs.The court analyzed the implications of adding a new party to the proceedings and filing an amended copy of the petition. It was argued that such actions could be perceived as a fresh acknowledgment of the debts. However, the court referred to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, which clarifies that adding a new party does not amount to a fresh acknowledgment unless there is a clear intention to admit the debtor-creditor relationship. The court concluded that in this case, the filing of the amended petition did not indicate an intention to acknowledge the debts, and therefore, the suits were not saved from being time-barred.In conclusion, the court held that the suits were indeed barred by limitation as the filing of the true copy in the insolvency proceedings did not constitute a valid acknowledgment under the law. The court emphasized the importance of a clear intention to admit the debtor-creditor relationship for an acknowledgment to be effective in extending the limitation period. Consequently, the civil revision petitions and second appeals were allowed, and the suits were dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
