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>Supreme Court emphasizes evidence-based approach in limitation disputes, sets aside preliminary decisions.</h1> <h3>M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell Private Limited Versus Manik Sethi</h3> M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell Private Limited Versus Manik Sethi - TMI Issues:- Suit dismissal on the ground of limitation- Interpretation of loan transactions vs. commission payments- Application of Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC for determining limitation as a preliminary issueAnalysis:1. The appellant filed a suit for recovery against the respondent, claiming repayment of loans granted, while the respondent argued that the payments were commissions for real estate services. The trial court and High Court dismissed the suit based on limitation, citing the last payment date. The appellant contended that the loans were to be repaid within a year, as per the plaint, and argued for a trial based on evidence rather than oral arguments alone.2. The defense denied the existence of loan transactions and highlighted the lack of a written agreement. The conflicting versions of the transactions necessitated evidence-based determination. The issue of limitation could not be isolated from the transaction nature, requiring evidence for resolution. The trial court's directive to address limitation orally was deemed irregular, as evidence should have been presented.3. The Supreme Court referred to Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, stating that the issue of limitation, when disputed, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. Citing the Nusli Neville Wadia case, the Court emphasized that disputed facts surrounding limitation preclude its determination as a preliminary issue. As the limitation issue was not solely a question of law, the Court set aside the previous judgments and directed its resolution with other issues at trial.4. The judgment allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for evidence-based determination on the limitation issue. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of factual disputes in determining legal issues and the inappropriateness of deciding limitations as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2. The case serves as a precedent for resolving similar disputes based on evidence rather than oral arguments alone.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
