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 the suit for recovery of price was governed by Article 115 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act on the footing that the dealings between the parties constituted a mutual, open and current account with reciprocal demands.
Analysis: Article 115 applies only where there are reciprocal demands creating independent obligations on both sides. The account between the parties was not mutual. The buyer's payments were made either in advance under the contract or towards the price of goods delivered, and did not create any independent obligation on the sellers in favour of the buyer. The advance payment was merely part of the contractual machinery for payment of the price and was to be adjusted against future deliveries. Delayed deliveries and delayed monthly payments did not alter the nature of the contract or convert the transactions into mutual dealings.
Conclusion: Article 115 did not apply, and the suit was barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit as time-barred was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A mutual account requiring reciprocal demands arises only where each side creates independent obligations on the other; advance payments under a supply contract and payments towards delivered goods do not, by themselves, constitute such mutual dealings.