Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Restores Trial Decision, Rules in Favor of Plaintiff; 1931 Khata Deemed a New Contract, Suit Maintained.</h1> <h3>Kasturchand Jiwaji Versus Manekchand Devchand</h3> Kasturchand Jiwaji Versus Manekchand Devchand - TMI Issues Involved:1. Consideration for khatas2. Bar of limitation3. Validity of khatas as new contracts or acknowledgments4. Applicability of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872Detailed Analysis:1. Consideration for khatas:The primary issue revolved around whether the khatas in question were passed for cash consideration or for past debts. The trial court found that the defendant did not prove the absence of consideration for the khata of 1931, while the appellate court concluded there was no cash consideration for the khata of 1931, and it was passed for the balance due on previous khatas. The High Court acknowledged the common practice among money-lenders to describe consideration as 'ready money received,' even when it was not genuine. It upheld the appellate court's finding that no cash consideration was paid for the khatas in question.2. Bar of limitation:The defense argued that the claim was time-barred, as the debt mentioned in the khata of 1926 had become time-barred by the time the next khata was passed in 1929. The appellate court agreed, stating that if any previous khata was passed beyond the limitation period, neither that khata nor any of its successors could save the limitation. However, the High Court clarified that if the khata of 1931 was regarded as creating a fresh contract, the limitation issue would be irrelevant. The suit was based on the contract contained in the khata of 1931, not on any acknowledgment of past debt.3. Validity of khatas as new contracts or acknowledgments:The High Court examined whether the khata of 1931 was a mere acknowledgment or a fresh contract. It concluded that the wording of the khata indicated a new contract, as it stated that Rs. 1,000 were received in cash and were payable. The court emphasized that the khata did not refer to any existing debt, suggesting it was meant to be a new transaction. Therefore, the khata of 1931 constituted a fresh promise to pay, making the plaintiff's suit maintainable.4. Applicability of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:The court addressed whether the khata of 1931, even if based on a time-barred debt, was valid under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This section allows a promise to pay a time-barred debt to be enforceable if made in writing and signed by the debtor. The court rejected the contention that the debtor must be aware that the debt was time-barred when making the promise. It held that the khata of 1931 fulfilled the conditions of Section 25(3), as it was a written promise to pay a debt that could not be enforced due to the limitation period. The court concluded that the past debt constituted valid consideration for the new contract, making the khata of 1931 valid and enforceable.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the appellate court's decree and restored the trial court's decree, thereby ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs throughout.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found